WKttsx^ 


SPEECHES 


OF 


FISHER     AMES 


IN    CONGRESS, 


1789-1796. 


EDITED     BY 


PELHAM     W.     AMES. 


BOSTON: 

LITTLE,   BROWN,   AND    COMPANY. 
1871. 


E50S- 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  j-ear  1871,  by 

PELHAM    W.     AMES, 

In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress  at  Washington. 


Two  hundred  and  fifty  copies  printed. 


CAMBRIDGE: 
PRESS  OF  JOHN  WILSON  AND  SOX. 


P  E  E  F  A  C  E. 


THE  first  edition  of  the  "Works  of  Fisher  Ames"  was  pub 
lished,  under  the  direction  of  a  number  of  his  friends,  in  1809. 
A  second  edition,  edited  by  his  son,  Seth  Ames,  was  published  in 
1854.  The  two  editions  are  substantially  identical,  except  that 
the  later  one  contains  a  valuable  and  interesting  collection  of 
letters,  which  are  arranged  by  the  editor  so  as  to  make  the  writer 
of  them  "  act  as  his  own  biographer."  But  of  his  speeches,  only 
three  are  given  in  his  works ;  and  of  these  three,  two  only  were 
delivered  in  the  halls  of  Congress.  A  very  cursory  glance,  how 
ever,  at  the  records  of  the  early  Congressional  debates,  shows 
that  Mr.  Ames  was  a  constant  speaker.  Hardly  any  subject,  of 
any  importance,  was  brought  before  Congress,  that  he  did  not 
take  an  active  part  in  its  consideration.  His  speeches  bear  marks 
of  close  application  and  study,  as  well  as  of  earnest  convictions. 
He  was  evidently  not  content  to  urge  his  opinions,  without  being 
able  to  enforce  them  by  facts  and  figures.  A  noticeable  feature  in 
his  manner  of  reasoning  is  the  occurrence  of  historical  parallels 
and  of  the  weighty  testimony  of  actual  calculation.  At  the  same 
time,  his  vivid  imagination  supplied  the  images  and  metaphors  of 
a  more  brilliant  rhetoric ;  and,  if  his  arguments  were  cogent,  his 
style  was  always  elegant  and  easy. 

By  the  judgment  of  his  contemporaries,  his  rank  as  an  orator 
was  very  high,  and  deservedly  so.  Even  if  his  fume  rested  wholly 
on  his  speech  on  the  British  Treaty,  it  would  be  established  on  a 
firm  basis.  He  received  from  "  the  fond  partiality  of  his  country 
men,"  says  the  "London  Quarterly  Review"  (December,  1840), 


M15793 


"  the  name  of  the  American  Burke  ;  and  there  are  passages  in  his 
speeches  which  might  go  far  toward  accounting  for,  if  they  do  not 
quite  justify,  the  appellation."  In  a  parallel  between  Burke  and 
Ames  in  the  "American  Review"  (Philadelphia,  1811),  the 
writer  says  :  "  Ames  is  generally  concise,  always  energetic,  fre 
quently  pointed ;  though  he  is  also  figurative  and  magnificent. 
His  metaphors  and  figures  are,  however,  for  the  most  part 
original ;  and  he  is,  in  my  opinion,  even  more  happy  than  Burke 
in  the  use  of  them.  He  does  not  pursue  them  so  far.  His  genius 
occasionally  blazes  out  like  the  lightning  of  heaven.  Its  corrusca- 
tions  dazzle  the  eye,  and  electrify  the  nerves.  He  sees  his  subject, 
not  only  clearly,  but  with  the  eye  of  prophecy  and  inspiration ; 
and  by  a  single  figure,  bold,  new,  and  striking,  brings  it  before 
you.  It  is  not  merely  perceived ;  it  is  tangible  ;  it  has  life  and 
body  and  substance.  In  fine,  his  style,  like  his  thoughts,  is 
original  and  his  own.  His  mode  of  reasoning  is  also  peculiar  to 
himself;  or  if  a  resemblance  can  be  found,  it  is  in  that  of  Lord 
Chatham.  He  rarely  descends  the  regular  steps  of  a  logical  deduc 
tion  ;  but  his  arguments  are,  nevertheless,  extremely  forcible  and 
conclusive.  He  is  always  glowing  and  energetic,  and,  where  the 
subject  admits  of  it,  pathetic  and  sublime.  What  gave  peculiar 
force  to  his  eloquence  was  the  strong  conviction  he  always  mani 
fested.  This  is  discoverable  in  all  his  speeches,  even  to  a  reader  ; 
and  must  have  been  much  more  strongly  felt  by  a  hearer." 

Such  disinterested  testimony  from  contemporaries  led  the 
present  writer  to  examine  more  carefully  the  records  of  the  time 
when  Mr.  Ames  was  a  Representative  from  Massachusetts,  —  an 
examination  that  more  than  repaid  the  search.  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  legislation,  at  that  time,  was  in  a  great  measure  ten 
tative.  The  Constitution  had  but  just  been  adopted  by  the  States, 
and  the  new-fledged  government  was  passing  through  that  ordeal 
that  is  so  severe  to  the  oldest  powers,  —  the  recovery  from  a  long 
and  exhausting  war.  And  not  only  was  the  government  called 
upon  to  decide  the  vexing  questions  of  revenue,  finance,  com 
merce,  tariff,  and  the  like,  but  the  very  machinery  of  the  govern 
ing  power  was  yet  to  be  set  in  motion.  The  executive,  legislative, 


and  judicial  departments  were  yet  to  be  organized  and  made  ready 
to  act.  And  this,  too,  in  a  time  of  universal  doubt  and  change, 
in  a  period  like  that  between  sleeping  and  waking,  of  singular 
apathy  and  listlessness  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  exaction  and 
jealousy  on  the  other.  Such  an  epoch  cannot  fail  to  be  an  inter 
esting  part  of  the  history  of  our  country.  It  was  in  this  construc 
tive  period  of  our  government  that  Mr.  Ames  served '  as  a  Repre 
sentative  in  Congress.  He  was  a  member  of  the  first  four 
Congresses,  between  the  years  1789  and  1797.  During  that  time, 
his  speeches,  were,  of  course,  numerous.  It  would  not  be  practi 
cable  nor  advisable  to  give  them  all.  But  a  few  have  been 
selected  from  the  many ;  and  in  the  selection  it  has  been  thought 
best  to  include  two  speeches  that  have  already  been  published; 
viz.,  those  on  Madison's  Commercial  Resolutions,  and  the  British 
Treaty.  Without  them,  a  collection  of  Mr.  Ames's  speeches  in 
Congress  would  be  incomplete ;  and,  as  the  editions  that  contain 
them  are  now  out  of  print,  it  is  hoped  that  no  apology  is  required 
for  their  introduction.  This  volume  also  includes  the  "  Answer 
to  President  Washington's  Address  to  the  Houses  of  Congress," 
which  was  written  by  Mr.  Ames.  The  collection  is  now  given  to 
the  public,  in  the  hope  that  it  will  not  be  without  interest  to  those 
who  are  interested  in  the  early  history  of  our  national  develop 
ment,  and  also  with  a  sincere  desire  to  add  something  to  the  fame 
of  Fisher  Ames,  as  well  as  to  offer  a  testimonial  of  respect  and 
admiration  to  his  genius  and  his  character. 


CONTENTS. 


I.  SPEECH  ON  THE  IMPOST   ON  MOLASSES 9 

II.  SPEECH  ON  THE  PUBLIC   CREDIT 19 

III.  SPEECH   ON   THE  ASSUMPTION  OF   STATE   DEBTS  32 

IV.  SPEECH   ON   THE    COD-FISHERIES 57 

V.  SPEECH    ON    MADISON'S     COMMERCIAL     RESOLU 
TIONS      72 

VI.  SPEECH  ON   THE  BRITISH  TREATY 113 

VII.  ANSWER   TO   WASHINGTON'S  ADDRESS  163 


SPEECHES. 


i. 

THE  debate  in  the  First  Congress  on  the  "  duties  on  imports  " 
was  a  protracted  one,  as  may  be  imagined.  But  the  nature  of  it 
was  not  such  as  to  give  rise  to  any  important  rhetorical  effort 
from  any  of  the  participants  in  it.  It  was  an  earnest  effort  to 
thoroughly  comprehend  the  effect  of  all  the  proposed  provisions, 
with  an  honest  view  to  adopt  what  was  for  "  the  greatest  good  of 
the  greatest  number."  Mr.  Ames  was  a  constant  speaker  on 
these  important  subjects,  which  were  to  him  matters  of  careful 
consideration  and  study.  The  speech  here  given,  in  opposition  to 
the  "  impost  on  molasses,"  was  delivered  on  the  28th  of  March, 
1789.  " 

I  APPEAL,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  confidence  to  the 
justice  of  this  House,  though  I  am  far  from  being 
convinced  that  any  liberality  has  been  shown  in 
fixing  the  duty  on  molasses  ;  but  I  am  persuaded  that 
Congress  will  adopt  no  measures  but  those  they  can 
justify  on  principle  to  their  constituents. 

I  conceive,  sir,  that  the  present  Constitution  was 
dictated  by  commercial  necessity  more  than  any  other 
cause.  The  want  of  an  efficient  government  to  secure 
the  manufacturing  interests,  and  to  advance  our  com 
merce,  was  long  seen  by  men  of  judgment,  and 
pointed  out  by  patriots  solicitous  to  promote  our  gen 
eral  welfare.  If  the  duty  which  we  contend  against 

2 


10 


is  found  to  defeat  these  objects,  I  am  convinced  the 
representatives  of  the  people  will  give  it  up.  I  trust 
that  gentlemen  are  well  satisfied,  that  the  support 
of  our  agriculture,  manufactures,  navigation,  and 
fisheries  are  objects  of  very  great  moment.  When 
'g'ent]e^'i(Ai/£pntemplate  the  fishery,  they  admit  its 
•  rifli^ortance,  arid -the  necessity  we  are  under  of  encour 
aging  and- :  protecting  it,  especially  if  they  consider 
its  declining  situation  ;  that  it  is  excluded  from  those 
advantages  which  it  formerly  obtained  in  British 
ports,  and  participates  in  but  a  small  degree  of  the 
benefits  arising  from  our  European  allies,  whose  mar 
kets  are  visited  under  severe  restrictions ;  yet,  with 
all  these  discouragements,  it  maintains  an  extent 
which  entitles  it  to  the  fostering  care  of  the  gov 
ernment.  There  are  taken,  upon  an  average,  400,000 
quintals  of  fish ;  in  this  branch  of  business,  as  was 
stated  by  my  colleague,*  there  are  employed  24,000 
tons  of  shipping  in  the  transportation  of  the  fish  to 
market ;  and  in  the  returns  of  molasses  near  an  equal 
tonnage  is  employed.  The  building  of  these  vessels 
furnishes  no  inconsiderable  employment  to  another 
important  interest.  The  vessels,  it  is  true,  are  but 
small ;  yet,  after  every  deduction  on  this  account,  the 
concern  will  be  found  interesting  to  the  public  wel 
fare.  If  it  is  true,  and  I  believe  it  is,  that  agriculture 
and  commerce  are  mutually  dependent  upon  each 
other,  —  and  there  is  a  probability  that  the  additional 
burden  we  have  imposed  will  injure  the  latter, — gen 
tlemen  ought  to  be  cautious  how  they  persist.  If 
they  even  doubt  of  its  effects  being  hurtful,  they  ought 
not  to  vote  for  its  continuance.  Now,  I  think  I  can 

*  Mr.  Gerry. 


11 


raise  such  doubts  in  gentlemen's  minds,  and  dare 
commit  myself  to  their  candor  for  the  consequences. 
Notwithstanding  gentlemen  have  expressed  a  uniform 
desire  to  encourage  manufactures  (and  I  have  been 
with  them  in  accomplishing  this  object),  they  now 
desert  their  principles.  When  it  has  been  contended 
that  the  duty  ought  to  be  low,  inasmuch  as  molasses 
is  a  raw  material,  it  has  been  replied  that  the  manu 
facture  is  pernicious.  It  has  been  said  that  promot 
ing  OUL-  own  distillation  will  exclude  foreign  rum, 
and  consequently  affect  the  revenue  ;  but  does  not 
the  same  argument  apply  to  every  article  of  domestic 
manufacture]  Has  it  not  all  along  been  contended, 
that  it  is  proper  in  the  General  Government  to 
nurture  those  interests  which  have  had  the  particular 
regard  of  the  individual  States,  upon  the  principle 
that  the  State  legislatures  knew  feelingly  what  were 
the  best  means  to  advance  their  own  interests  I  Has 
not  the  position  been  fully  established,  that  promoting 
the  interests  of  particular  States  increases  the  general 
welfare  ?  After  this,  can  gentlemen  tell  us  we  are 
advocating  a  local  policy]  That  we  are  sacrificing 
the  interest  of  three  millions  of  people  to  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  few  New  England  distilleries  \  For  my 
part,  I  ground  my  opinion  upon  national  principles; 
and  from  these  I  conclude  that  molasses  ought  not  to 
be  taxed,  or  taxed  but  very  lightly. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia*  fears  the  loss  of 
revenue  from  the  success  of  this  manufacture.  To 
quiet  his  apprehensions,  it  will  be  only  necessary  for 
me  to  remind  him  of  what  he  ingeniously  urged  a 
few  days  ago  on  this  point,  in  order  to  obtain  a  dis- 

*  Mr.  Madison. 


12 


crimination  in  favor  of  the  brandy  of  France.  He 
told  us,  that,  although  the  State  of  Virginia  had 
imposed  no  duty  on  brandy,  but  a  heavy  one  on  West 
India  rum,  yet  under  this  encouragement  there  were 
not  more  than  10,000  gallons  of  brandy  imported, 
while  there  were  600,000  gallons  of  rum ;  inferring 
from  this  fact  that  there  was  no  probable  ground  for 
suspecting  the  consumption  to  change  from  the  one 
to  the  other  article.  If  no  danger  is  to  be  appre 
hended  from  brandy,  much  less  can  New  England 
rum  stand  a  competition  with  West  India  spirit ;  the 
force  of  habit  will  not  be  more  easily  overcome  in  this 
case  than  in  the  other.  Besides,  it  is  well  known, 
that  a  great  proportion  of  the  people  will  not  drink  it 
at  all ;  it  is  a  kind  of  genteel  thing  to  affect  disgust 
and  loathing  at  the  very  name,  —  much  less  will  they 
surfer  the  despised  liquor  to  pollute  their  mouths.  So 
far  are  we  from  having  ground  to  dread  the  effect  of 
a  competition  on  this  side,  that  the  contrary  may  be 
justly  apprehended.  The  custom  and  fashion  of  the 
times  countenance  the  consumption  of  West  India 
rum.  I  consider  it  good  policy  to  avail  ourselves  of 
this  means  to  procure  a  revenue ;  but  I  treat  as  idle 
the  visionary  notion  of  reforming  the  morals  of  the 
people  by  a  duty  on  molasses.  We  are  not  to  consider 
ourselves,  while  here,  as  at  church  or  school,  to  listen 
to  the  harangues  of  speculative  piety  ;  we  are  to  talk  of 
the  political  interests  committed  to  our  charge.  When 
we  take  up  the  subject  of  morality,  let  our  system 
look  toward  that  object,  and  not  confound  itself  with 
revenue  and  protection  of  manufactures.  If  gentle 
men  conceive  that  a  law  will  direct  the  taste  of  the 
people  from  spirituous  to  malt  liquors,  they  must 


13 


have  more  romantic  notions  of  legislative  influence 
than  experience  justifies. 

When  it  was  asked,  What  is  the  occasion  of  a  high 
duty  I  it  was  answered,  that  it  is  necessary  in  order  to 
come  at  the  proper  tax  on  rum ;  but  I  insist  that 
there  is  no  such  necessity,  while  an  excise  is  within 
our  reach  ;  and  it  is  in  this  mode  only  that  you  can 
obtain  any  considerable  revenue.  The  gentleman 
from  Virginia  has  said  that  the  manufacture  of  coun 
try  rum  is  in  no  kind  of  danger  from  the  duty  on 
molasses.  Pie  has  stated  to  the  House  the  quantity 
made  before  the  Revolution,  and  goes  on  to  argue 
that  as  West  India  rum  paid  no  duty,  and  molasses 
paid  some,  if  the  manufacture  thrived  under  these 
disadvantages,  why  should  it  not  continue  to  support 
itself  in  future]  I  believe  this  matter  easy  to  be 
accounted  for,  though  I  fear  it  will  not  be  in  my 
power  to  make  a  proselyte  on  the  occasion.  I  should 
be  vain  of  such  success,  and  therefore  I  shall  proceed. 
There  were  many  very  considerable  markets  for  New 
England  rum  cut  off  entirely  by  the  Revolution  ;  even 
in  those  that  remain  we  have  to  encounter  rivals, 
who  successfully  contend  for  a  preference.  Previous 
to  the  late  war,  we  had  a  market  in  Nova  Scotia, 
Newfoundland,  and  Canada,  all  the  southern  colonies, 
Europe,  and  Africa.  We  are  now  obstructed  from 
going  to  many  of  those,  to  Quebec,  and  Newfound 
land  ;  and  our  trade  gains  no  ground  in  others  to 
make  up  the  difference.  Consider  the  state  of  the 
fisheries.  At  that  time  we  possessed  them  unri 
valled  ;  it  was  the  policy  of  Britain  to  favor  our 
efforts ;  believing  that  our  success  tended  to  increase 
her  maritime  strength,  she  dealt  out  to  us  an  annual 


14 


bounty  equal  to  £20,000  sterling  for  the  fish  we  took. 
All  her  ports  were  open  to  us ;  wre  could  carry  it  to 
what  market  we  pleased,  and  obtain  molasses  at  a 
low  price  for  the  distilleries.  But  the  present  state 
of  the  business  bears  no  comparison  with  its  former 
situation ;  the  trade  is  confined  to  a  less  channel,  in 
which,  instead  of  bounties,  we  meet  with  restrictions. 
•Our  fish  pay  a  duty  of  twelve  dollars  a  quintal,  which 
is  given  by  government  as  a  premium  in  favor  of 
their  own  fisheries.  This  imposition  amounts  to 
more  than  the  value  of  the  article  ;  yet,  even  under 
all  these  discouragements,  there  are  but  six  ports  in 
the  West  Indies  that  we  can  go  to,  —  St.  Lucia,  three 
in  Hispaniola,  one  in  Gaudaloupe,  and  one  in  Marti- 
nico.  This  being  the  case,  the  duties  are  rigidly 
exacted  of  us ;  and  we  have  no  other  means  of  vend 
ing  it  but  by  the  exchange  of  molasses.  Nor  is  this 
the  end  of  the  evil ;  I  fear  it  is  seriously  to  be  appre 
hended  that  we  may  be  shortly  deprived  of  this  mar 
ket  also.  The  merchants  of  L'Orient  have  repre 
sented  to  the  king,  that  it  would  be  for  the  interest  of 
their  colonies  to  distil  the  molasses  in  the  islands. 
Upon  the  strength  of  this  idea,  distil-houses  are  erected 
there,  and  bid  fair  to  rival  us  in  the  business  of  sup 
plying  not  only  Europe  and  Africa,  but  even  our  own 
country.  Now,  from  this  view  of  the  ground  on 
which  we  stand,  will  gentlemen  say  we  can  maintain 
and  defend  ourselves  as  well  as  we  did  before  the 
war  ?  If  we  even  had  the  same  advantages  in  vend- 

o 

ing  the  rum,  the  business  would  not  be  equally  prof 
itable,  as  the  price  of  molasses  has  increased,  and  our 
fish  has  fallen.  In  short,  unless  some  extraordinary 
measures  are  taken  to  support  our  fisheries,  I  do  not 


15 


see  what  is  to  prevent  their  inevitable  ruin.  It  is  a 
fact  that  near  one-third  of  our  fishermen  are  taken 
from  their  profession,  not  for  want  of  skill  and  abili 
ties  in  the  art,  —  for  here  they  take  the  rank  of  every 
nation  on  earth,  —  but  from  the  local,  chilling  policy 
of  foreign  nations,  who  shut  us  out  from  the  avenues 
to  our  market.  If,  instead  of  protection  from  the 
government,  we  extend  to  them  oppression,  I  shudder 
for  the  consequences.  But  I  will  not  enlarge  on  this 
head,  trusting  that  gentlemen  are  convinced  of  the 
importance  of  the  interest,  and  do  not  mean  to  de 
stroy  it. 

Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  not  to  consider  molasses  in 
the  same  light  as  if  it  were  in  the  form  of  rum.  We 
are  not  to  tax  a  necessary  of  life  in  the  same  manner 
as  we  do  a  pernicious  luxury.  I  am  sensible  an  at 
tempt  to  draw  a  critical  line  of  distinction  in  this  case, 
between  what  is  necessary  and  what  is  a  luxury,  will 
be  attended  with  some  difficulty ;  but  I  conceive  the 
distinction  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose,  if  it 
prove  molasses  to  be  necessary  for  the  subsistence  of 
the  people.  No  decent  family  can  do  without  some 
thing  by  way  of  sweetening ;  whether  this  arises 
from  custom  or  necessity  of  nature,  is  not  worth  the 
inquiry ;  if  it  is  admitted  to  be  a  requisite  for  the  sup 
port  of  life,  a  tax  on  it  will  be  the  same  as  a  tax  on 
bread ;  it  is  repugnant  to  the  first  principles  of  policy 
to  lay  taxes  of  this  nature  in  America.  What  is  it 
that  entitles  the  United  States  to  take  rank  of  all  the 
nations  in  Europe,  but  because  it  is  the  best  country 
for  the  poor  to  live  in  I  If  we  go  on  taxing  such  ar 
ticles  as  salt  and  molasses,  these  advantages  will  not 
long  continue  to  be  ours.  It'  may  be  said  that  sugar 


16 


is  also  a  necessary  of  life :  true,  but  molasses,  inas 
much  as  it  is  cheaper,  can  be  more  easily  obtained, 
and  enters  more  into  consumption,  at  least  of  the 
poor.  They  apply  it  to  various  uses  ;  it  is  a  substitute 
for  malt,  in  making  beer  ;  and  shall  it  be  said  that 
the  General  Government  descends  to  small  beer  for 
its  revenue,  while  strong  beer  remains  duty  free  ? 
Why  shall  this  difference  be  made  between  the  com 
mon  drink  of  one  part  of  the  continent  and  the  other, 
unless  it  be  with  a  view  to  drive  the  people  to  drink 
ing  simple  water  ?  The  gentleman  from  Virginia 
contends  that  the  consumers  of  eight  pounds  of  sugar 
pay  more  than  those  who  use  eight  pounds  of  mo 
lasses  ;  this  may  be  true,  but  from  the  variety  of  ways 
in  which  molasses  is  used,  eight  pounds  is  sooner  con 
sumed  than  six  or  four  pounds  of  sugar,  which  makes 
up  the  difference.  But  do  gentlemen  mean  that  the 
poorest  and  weakest  part  of  the  community  shall  pay 
as  much  for  what  they  use  as  the  richer  classes?  Is 
this  the  reward  of  their  toil  and  industry  ? 

It  has  been  stated  as  a  fact  by  my  colleague,*  that 
Massachusetts  will  pay  more  by  the  impost  on  mo 
lasses  than  Pennsylvania  will  on  both  rum  and  sugar. 
The  population  and  strength  of  these  two  States  are 
nearly  equal ;  then  why  should  this  disproportion  be 
contended  for?  Is  it  supposed  that  Massachusetts 
will  not  contribute  her  proportion  on  other  articles  ? 
This,  on  examination,  will  be  found  not  to  be  the  case. 
Gentlemen  say  that  the  State  which  exports  least,  im 
ports  least ;  but  does  it  not  follow  that  this  State  pays 
according  to  her  ability  to  pay?  If  the  products  of 
Massachusetts  are  neither  so  rich  nor  valuable  as  those 

*  Mr  Goodhue. 


17 


of  the  Southern  States,  ought  she  to  pay  the  impost  in 
the  same  proportion? 

The  question  is  plainly  reducible  to  this  :  Shall  we 
tax  a  necessary  of  life  in  the  same  proportion  as  a 
luxury  ?  Gentlemen  will  not  contend  for  either  the 
justice  or  policy  of  such  a  measure  ;  but  they  say  the 
necessity  of  the  case  obliges  them  ;  they  cannot  come 
at  the  luxury  but  through  the  raw  material.  They 
say  they  cannot  lay  an  excise.  I  ask,  Why  not? 
People  may  justly  think  it  burdensome  to  raise  all  our 
supplies  from  impost.  Much  can  be  obtained  from 
this  source,  to  be  sure,  by  touching  every  thing  ;  but 
I  would  recommend  touching  such  things  as  are  es 
sential  to  subsistence  lightly,  and  bring  in  the  excise 
as  a  means  of  obtaining  the  deficiency  ;  it  will  be  the 
more  certain  way  of  making  country  rum  contribute 
its  proportion.  I  am  not  against  a  duty  in  this  shape ; 
but  if  the  hand  of  government  is  stretched  out  to 
oppress  the  various  interests  I  have  enumerated  by  an 
unequal  and  oppressive  tax  on  the  necessaries  of  life, 
I  fear  we  shall  destroy  the  fond  hopes  entertained  by 
our  constituents  that  this  government  would  insure 
their  rights,  extend  their  commerce,  and  protect  their 
manufactures.  Mothers  will  tell  their  children,  when 
they  solicit  their  daily  and  accustomed  nutriment,  that 
the  new  laws  forbid  them  the  use  of  it ;  and  they  will 
grow  up  in  a  detestation  of  the  hand  which  proscribes 
their  innocent  food,  and  the  occupation  of  their 
fathers ;  the  language  of  complaint  will  circulate  uni 
versally,  and  change  the  favorable  opinion  now  enter 
tained  to  dislike  and  clamor. 

The  House  will  not  suppose  we  are  actuated  by 
local  interests  in  opposing  a  measure  big  with  such 

3 


18 


dangerous  consequences  to  the  existence  of  the  Union. 
They  will  admit  we  have  reason  for  persisting  in  our 
opposition  to  a  high  duty,  and  may  be  inclined  to  join 
us  in  reducing  it  either  to  five  per  cent  or  at  most  to 
one  cent  per  gallon.  If  the  apprehensions  we  have 
expressed  shall  be  realized,  let  it  rest  upon  the  advo 
cates  of  the  present  measure ;  we  have  done  our 
duty,  and  it  only  remains  for  us  to  submit  to  that  ruin 
in  which  the  whole  may  be  involved. 


II. 


ON  the  8th  of  February,  1790,  the  House  of  Representatives 
"  resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  whole  on  the  state  of  the 
Union.  The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  relative  to  a 
provision  for  the  support  of  the  public  credit  was  before  them." 
In  the  course  of  the  consideration  of  this  subject,  Mr.  Madison 
offered  an  amendment  (Feb.  11,  1790)  to  the  original  resolu 
tions  on  the  Secretary's  report,  as  follows : — 

"  Resolved,  That  adequate  funds  ought  to  be  provided  for  paying 
the  interest  and  principal  of  the  domestic  debt,  as  the  same  shall 
be  liquidated  ;  and  that,  in  such  liquidation,  the  present  holders  of 
public  securities,  which  have  been  alienated,  shall  be  settled  Avith 
according  to  the  highest  market  rate  of  such  securities  ;  and  that 
the  balance  of  the  sums  due  from  the  public  be  paid  in  such  pro 
portion  to  the  original  holder  of  such  securities." 

On  the  loth  of  February  and  subsequently,  the  House  again 
took  up  the  subject  of  the  public  credit ;  and  Mr.  Madison's  motion 
for  a  discrimination  was  considered  and  debated. 

The  subjoined  speech  of  Mr.  Ames  was  made  on  that  date,  in 
opposition  to~tnat  resolution. 

I  AGREE,  Mr.  Speaker,  with  the  gentleman  from 
Virginia  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  the  debt.  There 
was  propriety  in  saying  the  nation  is  the  same,  though 
the  government  be  changed.  The  debt  is  the  price 
of  our  liberties,  and  cannot  be  diminished  a  farthing, 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia  says  ;  and  why  I  Because 


20 


the  government,  as  one  of  the  contracting  parties, 
cannot  annul  or  vary  the  bargain,  without  the  con 
sent  of  the  other.  If  the  measure  proposed  by  that 
gentleman  corresponds  with  that  sound  principle,  I 
shall  have  the  pleasure  of  agreeing  with  him  on  the 
ultimate  decision  ;  but  if  the  measure  should  be  found, 
on  a  fair  discussion,  to  be  subversive  of  that  prin 
ciple,  it  will  not  merit  the  countenance  of  the  Com 
mittee. 

A  claim  upon  our  justice  is  made  on  behalf  of  the 
original  holders  of  securities  who  have  transferred 
them.  Does  the  plighted  faith  of  the  country  stand 
charged  to  pay  the  difference  between  the  price  their 
securities  sold  for  in  the  market  and  their  nominal 
sum'?  In  order  to  make  the  affirmative  appear,  the 
worthy  gentleman  has  said  that  the  paper  is  the  only 
evidence  of  a  prior  contract ;  and  while  the  paper 
was  sold,  the  residuary  right  to  the  debt  still  remained 
in  the  seller.  Supposing  this  novel  doctrine  to  be 
true,  which  cannot  be  conceded,  it  will  not  warrant 
any  conclusion  in  prejudice  of  any  purchaser  of  the 
Loan-office  debt ;  for  the  paper  was  given  when  the 
loan  was  made ;  as  no  prior  debt  existed,  the  paper  is 
the  very  debt.  The  gentleman  ought,  therefore,  to 
confine  his  motion  to  the  army  debt,  as  his  principle 
seems  inapplicable  to  any  other.  And  even  on  liqui 
dating  the  army  debt,  the  certificate  extinguished  the 
prior  debt;  otherwise  the  public  would  be  twice 
charged.  As  when  one  man  owes  another  an  ac 
count,  and  gives  his  bond  for  the  balance,  the  account 
is  no  longer  of  force.  By  the  terms  of  the  certificate, 
the  person  transferring  has  lost  his  claim  against  the 
public.  He  has  freely  transferred  ;  for,  if  violence  or 


fraud  were  practised,  the  law  will  afford  him  redress. 
In  society,  as  well  as  in  a  state  of  nature,  property  is 
changed  by  the  consent  of  the  last  occupant.  He  may 
dispose  of  it  by  gift  or  at  half-price,  and  give  a  com 
plete  title.  Nor  will  the  pretence  that  this  transfer 
was  free  only  in  appearance  avail ;  for  the  motives 
which  disposed  the  owner  to  sell  cannot  affect  the 
right  of  the  purchaser.  Every  such  creditor  risked 
something,  either  that  the  government  would  not  pay 
him  at  all,  or  not  in  due  season.  The  risk,  computed 
in  free  and  open  market,  will  be  nearly  right.  It  is  a 
kind  of  insurance  against  these  risks,  and  the  insurers 
and  insured  will  calculate  the  rate  of  insurance  better 
than  government  can  do  it.  If  there  is  a  new  risk  of 
government  interposing,  it  seems  that  the  purchaser, 
who  may  be  called  the  insurer,  did  not  rate  his  risk 
high  enough.  It  seems  pretty  clear,  therefore,  that 
there  is  no  claim  on  the  stipulated  justice  of  the 
country. 

Another  sort  of  justice  is  set  up ;  a  different  sort 
from  that  which  we  were  taught  in  the  churches  and 
schools :  it  is  called  abstract  justice,  and  it  is  said  to 
demand  allowance  for  the  loss  sustained  by  the  failure 
of  public  payments.  No  man  respects  more  than  I 
do  the  merit  of  the  army;  but  the  soldiers,  at  least, 
had  something  towards  justice  by  their  bounty. 

Stock  has  sold  in  England  at  fifty  per  cent  discount, 
and  yet  no  retribution  has  been  made.  Where,  then, 
does  this  new  line  of  justice  begin  ?  It  can  scarcely 
be  denied  that  their  claim,  if  they  have  any,  is  not  a 
debt.  The  arguments  alleged  by  the  gentleman  are 
addressed  merely  to  the  compassion  and  generosity  of 
the  government.  Nor  do  I  know  that  there  is  any 


22 


ground  for  saying  that  public  opinion  is  in  their  favor. 
It  will  be  allowed  that  if  justice  is  to  be  done,  it 
should  be  impartial  justice.  Partiality  would  be  more 
cruel  than  total  neglect.  Will  you  refuse  to  make 
amends  for  paper  money'?  For  property  taken  by 
our  army  in  Canada  ]  For  losses  sustained  by  the 
war  ]  For  towns  burned  ?  In  this  last  case  it  is  to  be 
observed  that  government  has  promised  protection ; 
and  inability  to  protect  is  as  much  a  debt  as  the  case 
in  question.  The  intermediate  holders,  who  bought 
at  six  shillings  and  eight  pence,  and,  despairing  of 
government,  sold  at  two  shillings  and  six  pence,  have 
an  equal  claim.  Are  all  these  to  be  excluded  ]  Let 
us  not  break  contracts  for  half  justice.  The  example 
of  paper  money  is  adduced  to  show  that  the  pub 
lic  made  up  losses  ;  but  this  is  an  example  of  the 
public  fulfilling  its  contracts,  not  annulling  them. 
Paper  money  is  a  bad  source  to  draw  examples 
from. 

But  is  it  true  that  justice  requires  the  public  to  pay 
for  all  losses  sustained  in  times  of  calamity  ?  I  think 
not ;  for  by  fraud  the  government  would  be  obliged  to 
pay  for  more  than  was  lost.  The  resources  of  the 
sufferers  will  more  easily  repair  such  losses  than  the 
government  can  make  them  good ;  and  besides,  in 
extreme  cases,  it  would  extend  and  prolong  the  evil. 
If  an  army  should  invade  England,  and  the  city  of 
London  should  be  burned,  and  the  country  laid  waste 
by  the  order  of  the  king,  all  Europe  could  not  pay  for 
it.  What  is  justice  ]  A  line  of  public  conduct  which 
necessarily  tends  to  utility.  No  pretence  of  abstract 
justice  can  be  valid,  if  it  tends  to  evil  rather  than  to 
good. 


But  if  there  subsists  a  claim  on  the  public  justice, 
it  cannot  impair  the  debt  in  the  hands  of  the  present 
holder,  for  which  the  public  faith  is  pledged.  It  is 
alleged  that  the  seller,  who  sold  for  a  trifle,  will  be 
taxed  to  pay  the  purchaser.  He  certainly  ought  to 
fare  as  other  citizens  do.  But  taxes  are  in  proportion 
to  property.  If  he  has  property,  then  the  plea  of 
necessity  is  destroyed ;  if  he  has  none,  then  his  taxes 
will  be  a  mere  trifle. 

The  project  is  not  justice,  even  to  those  whom  it 
pretends  to  relieve.  If  you  allow  less  to  the  pur 
chasers  than  they  gave,  it  is  downright  robbery ;  if 
you  allow  more,  it  is  half-way  justice  to  those  who 
have  sold.  1  would  not  risk  every  thing  to  do  justice, 
as  it  is  called,  and  then  riot  do  it. 

But  this  fragment  of  justice  cannot  be  given  to 
some  without  wronging  others  ;  you  impair  the  prop 
erty  in  the  hands  of  the  present  original  holders.  It 
is  not  supposed  that  the  alienated  property  is  nearly 
equal  to  that  which  is  still  in  the  hands  of  the  first 
holders.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  believe,  with  confidence, 
that  it  would  be  cheaper  for  the  present  holders  to  pay 
the  market  price  of  the  paper  proposed  to  be  given  to 
the  former  holder,  than  to  suffer  the  shock  which 
this  measure  would  give  to  the  credit  of  their  paper. 
I  will  not  enter  now  into  the  merits  of  the  Secretary's 
plan  ;  but  I  think  it  not  difficult  to  show  that  he  pro 
poses  better  justice  to  the  present  original  holders  than 
is  contained  in  the  motion,  and  that  the  debt,  funded 
on  this  plan,  would  sell  for  more  in  the  market. 
Great  sums  have  been  lent  to  the  public  by  trustees, 
who  acted  for  others,  and  only  lent  their  names. 
Many  original  creditors  were  not  first  holders  ;  sup- 


plies  were  furnished  to  contractors  for  the  army,  who 
got  credit,  and  afterwards  paid  in  paper,  as  they 
received  it  of  the  public.  Many  towns  hired  soldiers 
for  a  gross  sum,  and  agreed  to  take  the  wages.  Pri 
vate  debts  have  been  paid  at  par.  A  man  in  embar 
rassed  circumstances,  instead  of  compounding  with  his 
creditors  for  ten  or  a  dozen  years'  forbearance,  paid 
them  at  par,  or  near  it,  in  public  money,  which,  in 
that  period,  was  supposed  to  be  as  likely  to  be  paid  as 
his  private  note.  No  less  a  sum  than  two  hundred  and 
fourteen  thousand  dollars  were  paid  in  this  way  to  one 
mercantile  house,  at  about  fifteen  shillings  in  the 
pound.  Compare  the  gross  injustice  of  these  cases 
with  the  pretended  justice  of  the  motion  ;  consider 
what  it  pretends  to  pay  the  purchaser.  But  Loan- 
office  certificates  have  sold  from  fifteen  and  eighteen 
shillings  in  the  pound  to  five  shillings.  Foreign  pur 
chasers  gave  more  than  our  market  price.  Before 
they  bought,  they  got  certificates  of  the  nature  of  the 
debt,  that  it  was  not  liable  to  any  deduction,  and  that 
the  transfer  would  be  valid.  People  in  the  first  offices 
in  this  country  and  abroad  signed  them.  Five  hun 
dred  thousand  dollars  were  bought  for  one  Dutch 
house,  and  registered,  and  the  partners  in  the  sum 
have  divided  the  certificates  by  giving  their  own  bonds. 
What  will  be  the  effect  I  Justice  or  injustice  ?  In 
this  case,  the  gentleman  will  admit  that  the  rights  of 
these  people  are  perfect.  The  debt,  he  says  himself, 
cannot  be  diminished  a  farthing  ;  property  is  sacred ; 
the  right  to  a  single  dollar  cannot  be  violated.  Let 
the  gentleman,  then,  acknowledge  that  he  must  give 
up  his  project  or  his  principles. 


I  have  endeavored  to  show  what  sort  of  abstract 
justice  this  is.  But  if  it  should  be  allowed  that  there 
is  a  claim  of  justice,  what  then]  Let  them  claim 
justice  of  those  who  have  done  them  injustice,  not  of 
the  fair  purchaser. 

Let  us  examine  the  claims  of  the  purchasers.  The 
gentleman's  argument  on  this  point  merits  attention  ; 
if  it  is  right,  for  its  novelty  in  Congress ;  if  wrong, 
for  its  tendency.  Here  I  think  it  necessary  to  apolo 
gize,  not  for  my  sentiments,  —  their  apology  must 
spring  from  their  propriety,  —  but  for  the  manner  in 
which  I  express  them.  My  zealous  conviction  may 
seem  to  arraign  the  opinions  of  other  gentlemen, 
whom  I  respect  as  I  ought.  I  know  that  men  of  the 
best  intentions  entertain  a  favorable  opinion  of  a  dis 
crimination.  There  is  a  wish  to  do  more  than  justice 
to  the  one,  and  the  heart,  betrayed  by  its  sympathy, 
consents  to  injustice  to  the  other.  But,  sir,  I  cannot 
claim  the  merit  of  moderation  on  this  point.  I  will 
not  pretend  that  I  doubted  first,  and  then  decided. 
The  principles  of  my  education,  and  the  habits  of 
life,  predisposed  me  to  believe,  and  my  short  experi 
ence  and  reading  have  confirmed  it,  that  nations  cannot 
admit  cunning  into  their  councils,  without  its  shedding 
a  malignant  influence  on  their  affairs.  Experience 
teaches  government  as  well  as  men  that  nothing  is  safe 
that  is  wrong.  We  have  endured  tender-laws  and 
the  pitiful  expedients  of  a  trickish  policy.  Our  expe 
rience  has  cost  us  dear.  The  old  Congress,  however, 
were  guided  by  other  maxims  ;  with  little  power,  and 
scarcely  retaining  the  mock  representation  of  it  during 
the  whole  year,  they  prosecuted  the  objects  of  an 
honest  policy,  with  a  zeal  which  repulses  and  despair 

4 


26 


could  not  extinguish.  They  could  say,  with  Francis 
the  First,  after  the  battle  of  Pavia,  "  We  have  lost  all 
except  our  honor."  They  resolved  against  discrimi 
nation,  and  foreigners  as  well  as  citizens  bought 
securities  under  the  public  faith.  But  when  the  Con 
stitution  was  framed,  adopting  the  debts  as  valid, 
restraining  ex  post  facto  laws  and  laws  impairing  con 
tracts,  who  entertained  any  suspicion  1  The  speech 
of  the  President,  and  the  resolutions  of  the  House  in 
favor  of  public  credit,  banished  it.  Does  this  look  as 
if  public  opinion  was  hostile  to  these  purchasers  ?  If 
it  really  is,  it  is  more  a  duty  on  government  to  protect 
right  when  it  may  happen  to  be  unpopular.  That  is 
what  government  is  framed  to  do.  If,  instead  of  pro 
tecting,  it  assumes  the  right  of  controlling  property, 
and  disposing  of  it  at  its  own  pleasure,  and  against 
the  consent  of  the  owner,  there  is  a  cheat  in  the 
compact. 

It  will  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  right  vested 
in  the  purchaser.  Government  cannot  diminish  it  a 
farthing,  says  the  gentleman  ;  but  he  says  we  cannot 
pay  both.  Then  abide  by  your  word  of  honor ;  pre 
fer  perfect  rights,  by  solemn  compact,  to  claims  on 
your  compassion.  The  claims  of  the  present  holders, 
you  say,  are  just:  are  the  others  more  than  just? 
Treat  all  just  claims  alike,  and  do  not  rob  on  the  high 
way  to  exercise  charity.  Why  make  one  creditor  pay 
another  ]  He  says  government  is  to  get  nothing  by 
this ;  and  yet  he  says  we  owe  these  people,  and  our 
creditors  shall  pay  them.  Is  paying  a  debt  in  this 
way  not  getting  money  ?  He  talks  of  rival  claims  : 
there  is  no  rivalry  ;  the  sellers  agreed  that  there  should 
be  none.  If  government  is  bankrupt,  compound 


27 


with  your  creditors.  Will  this  act  of  violence  console 
the  sufferers]  Will  they  enjoy,  as  a  favor,  the  viola 
tion  of  rights  for  which  they  fought  I  The  South 
Sea  and  Mississippi  schemes  have  been  adduced  as 
examples.  In  the  former,  government  interposed  to 
fulfil  the  contract.  The  Mississippi  is  not  parallel. 
What  the  gentleman  calls  public  justice  I  am  sure  he 
would  not  practise  in  his  own  case. 

I  have  chosen  to  consider  the  principle  of  the 
motion  ;  but  it  cannot  be  carried  into  execution.  We 
have  seen  that  justice,  in  the  abstract,  will  not  be 
done,  nor  can  the  measure  proposed  be  effected. 
We  may  very  well  suppose  that  innumerable  diffi 
culties  will  arise  in  practice  which  cannot  be  fore 
seen.  The  detail  will  be  endless  ;  an  account  must 
be  opened  for  each  claimant,  public  offices  must 
be  opened,  officers  multiplied,  and  great  expense* 
incurred;  there  is  no  clew,  by  the  records,  to,  the 
cases  of  money  deposited  by  agents  for  other  people. 
I  have  inquired,  and  am  told  that  it  is  not  possible. 
Will  you  admit  oral  evidence,  and  of  persons  inter 
ested  ?  Will  you  fill  the  land  with  discontent,  cor 
ruption,  suits,  and  perjury!  The  new  paper,  if  not 
transferable,  will  be  no  great  relief;  if  transferable, 
there  will  be  a  new  harvest  of  speculation  ;  the  after 
crop  will  be  more  abundant  than  the  first  cutting.  A 
purchaser  keeps  his  note  for  twenty  shillings  :  by  law 
you  make  it  a  note  for  ten  shillings.  How  many 
frauds  will  be  practised  on  the  unwary  !  If  the  mind 
balances  on  these  points,  let  policy  turn  the  scale ! 

Will  not  this  measure  shake  government  I  Instead 
of  doing  as  it  has  promised,  government  is  to  do  as  it 
pleases.  Right  is  to  depend,  not  on  compact  and 


28 


sacred  faith,  and  the  Constitution,  but  on  opinion,  on 
a  major  vote.  Where  nothing,  not  even  right,  is  fixed, 
will  not  the  government  be  liable  to  perpetual  com 
motion  ? 

How  will  it  affect  our  national  character  ]  How 
will  it  affect  public  credit  1  We  shall  have  to  pay 
for  meddling,  if  in  future  we  have  any  credit.  The 
famous  Colonel  Chartres  said  he  would  give  a  hun 
dred  thousand  pounds  for  a  character ;  not  for  its 
own  sake,  but  because  he  could  get  two  hundred 
thousand  by  it.  Henry  VIII.  borrowed  money  on 
his  personal  security ;  and  his  base  Parliament  voted 
that  as  he  had  done  great  things  for  the  realm  and 
church,  he  should  be  discharged  from  these  obligations. 
Charles  II.  shut  up  the  exchequer.  What  was  the 
consequence?  King  William  paid  fourteen  per  cent 
on  annuities,  and  at  the  rate  of  ten  and  twelve  per 
cent  interest;  but,  by  good  faith,  in  five  or  six  years 
money  fell  to  five  per  cent  interest.  By  breach  of 
faith,  we  vote  the  government  into  a  state  of  pupil 
age,  and  deprive  it  of  its  powers. 

I  have  thus  endeavored  to  show  that  there  is  not 
a  debt  subsisting  against  the  public,  in  favor  of  the 
original  holders,  who  have  sold  out ;  that  the  motion 
is  chargeable  with  partiality,  and  is  inadequate  to  its 
v  pretended  object ;  that  it  will  do  injustice  to  many, 
and  violate  the  sacred  rights  of  property;  that  the 
purchasers  are  secured  by  the  contract,  by  the  faith 
of  government,  and  by  the  Constitution;  that  the 
measure  is  not  practicable,  and  will  produce  confu 
sion,  corruption,  and  expense  ;  and  that  it  will  weaken, 
disturb,  and  disgrace  the  government,  and  impair  its 
credit. 


29 


I  have  made  this  recapitulation  of  my  argument, 
in  order  to  bring  it  into  one  view.  If  it  is  just  or  only 
plausible,  let  us  ask,  What  will  be  the  effect  ?  Is  this 
what  was  expected  under  the  new  Constitution  ]  Did 
we  expect  it?  Is  there  any  one  here  who  has  not 
told  the  people  that  an  end  would  be  put  to  tender- 
acts  and  paper  money,  and  the  ruinous  effect  of  gov 
ernments  interposing  in  contracts  ]  Who,  in  or  out 
of  government,  did  not  suppose  that  the  letter  and 
spirit  of  the  Constitution  said  as  much  ]  The  spirit 
of  the  times  said  more.  Will  not  the  people  charge 
us  with  violating  the  Constitution  and  the  rights  of  prop 
erty  ?  If  we  plead  necessity,  they  will  demand,  How 
came  it  that  we  were  ignorant  of  it  ?  And  if  it  exists, 
what  is  there  that  breach  of  faith  can  save  that  good 
faith  would  lose  I  Or,  What  will  that  be  worth  which 
may  be  secured  by  a  measure  that  will  tarnish  our 
national  honor,  and  transmit  to  our  children  an  inher 
itance  of  reproach  ]  Is  there  no  refuge  but  in  dis 
honor^  We  have  borne  adversity  before,  and  we 
had  rather  submit  to  the  worst  events  of  an  honest 
policy  ;  and  this  project  is  not  to  relieve  any  burdens  ; 
for  government  is  to  rob,  not  for  plunder,  but  to  get 
the  reputation  of  justice. 

If  our  own  citizens  say  this,  what  will  foreigners 
say]  They  will  not  be  restrained,  either  by  the 
opinion  of  their  fellow-countrymen,  or  by  attachment 
to  our  prosperity.  They  will  detail  their  losses,  and 
the  acts  by  which  their  confidence  was  gained ; 
they  will  think  that  we  have  been  taught  a  species  of 
moral  philosophy;  that  we  administer  government 
by  a  kind  of  cunning  logic,  which  confounds  right 
and  wrong ;  they  will  rejoice  that  the  Mahrattas  and 


30 


Americans  are  at  a  distance.  The  ocean  has  not  hith 
erto  proved  a  barrier  against  our  depredations.  An 
American  abroad  will  be  obliged  to  deny  his  country. 

However,  I  still  believe  that  justice  is  a  law  to  Con 
gress  :  but  if  justice  and  public  faith  and  honor  have 
ceased  to  be  things,  let  them  cease  to  be  names ;  let 
them  be  blotted  from  the  vocabulary  of  our  nation. 
If  they  have  no  being,  why  should  they  be  made  use 
of  to  conjure  up  church-yard  terrors,  to  haunt  the 
hypochondriac  imagination? 

I  will  not  be  so  uncandid  as  to  charge  the  worthy 
gentleman  with  such  intentions.  I  think  so  highly  of 
his  probity  and  patriotism,  that  if  he  can  be  made  to 
see  that  these  consequences  will  follow,  or  only  be 
apprehended,  he  will  give  up  his  scheme.  And  if 
government  has  this  right,  what  right  of  private 
property  is  safe  '\  In  the  East,  government  is  said 
to  be  the  sole  owner  of  property,  and  may  resume  it 
at  pleasure.  This  absurd  doctrine  will  not  find  advo 
cates  ;  for  it  would  not  do  for  practice,  even  where  it 
may  not  be  denied  to  be  true.  Human  nature  revolts 
against  it ;  it  would  shock  the  morality  of  Botany  Bay  ; 
it  would  exasperate  beyond  sufferance  the  patient 
slavery  of  Hindostan.  And  who  can  give  a  good 
reason  why  one  sort  of  property  should  be  more  sacred 
than  another? 

If  we  pursue  another  kind  of  policy,  such  as  the 
preamble  to  the  Constitution  declares  to  be  the  objects 
of  the  government,  this  government  and  this  country 
may  expect  a  more  than  Roman  fortune.  The  gov 
ernment  may  have  more  credit,  the  country  more 
knowledge,  and  the  blessings  of  peace  a  longer  dura 
tion,  than  the  world  has  ever  experienced.  That  gen- 


31 


tleman  helped  to  frame  the  Constitution.  I  have  no 
doubt  it  is  the  better  for  his  eminent  abilities  ;  I  hope 
that  the  love  of  his  own  work,  and  his  zeal  for  the 
cause  which  he  has  so  ably  supported,  will  induce 
him  to  abandon  a  measure  which  tends  so  fatally  to 
disappoint  the  first  wishes  of  his  own  heart,  and  the 
hopes  of  his  country. 


III. 


ON  the  19th  of  May,  1790,  the  House  of  Representatives  went 
into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  consider  a  bill  "  for  making  pro 
vision  for  the  debt  of  the  United  States."  The  bill  was  considered 
daily  for  many  days  in  succession,  during  which  time  many  amend 
ments  were  offered,  debated,  and  voted  on.  After  the  consideration 
of  the  twelfth  section,  Mr.  Gerry,  of  Massachusetts,  moved  (May 
24th)  to  insert  a  clause  providing  for  "  the  assumption  of  the  State 
debts  by  the  General  Government."  On  the  following  day,  Mr. 
Gerry's  motion  was  again  read,  and  was  supported  by  Mr.  Ames 
in  the  subjoined  speech. 
j 

MR.  SPEAKER,  —  I  am  obliged  to  obtrude  my  senti 
ments  upon  the  Committee  under  circumstances  which 
stifle  the  hope  of  procuring  for  them  a  welcome  recep 
tion.  The  curiosity  of  the  assembly,  in  the  first  stages 
of  a  public  debate,  will  procure  some  indulgence,  and 
administer  considerable  aid  to  him  who  has  to  support 
a  part  in  it.  But  this  subject  has  been  debated  until 
it  has  become  tedious;  there  is  very  little  remaining 
to  be  said  that  can  excite  curiosity  or  reward  attention. 
The  feelings  of  the  Committee  will  procure  me  belief 
when  I  say  that  I  obey  the  duty  of  attempting  to 
obviate  the  objections  which  have  been  urged  by  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia,*  and  which  I  think  is 
imposed  upon  me  by  some  of  them,  with  unaffected 

*  Mr.  Madison. 


33 


reluctance.  I  will  hope,  however,  that  a  candid  con 
descension  to  the  necessity  of  my  situation,  and  a 
sense  of  public  duty,  will  overcome,  or  suspend  for  a 
time,  the  disgust  which  has  attended  the  revival  of 
this  debate. 

The  zeal  of  the  gentlemen  on  both  sides  has  led 
them  to  draw  aid  to  their  cause  from  very  remote 
sources.  But  all  the  objections  against  assumption 
may  be  comprised  in  these  two,  —  that  the  measure  is 
against  justice  and  against  policy.  Both  sides  of  the 
question  have  been  maintained  with  an  uncommon 
warmth  of  conviction ;  in  candor,  and  probably  in 
strict  truth,  this  ought  to  be  mutually  understood  as 
the  evidence  of  a  sincere  zeal  for  the  public  good. 

To  evince  the  justice  of  the  assumption,  I  take,  as 
the  ground  of  my  reasoning,  a  proposition  which  is 
admitted  by  both  sides,  —  that  the  expenses  of  the  war 
ought  to  be  made  a  common  charge  upon  the  United 
States. 

It  will  illustrate  my  argument  to  observe  that  the 
war  was  between  this  country  and  Britain,  and  not  a 
war  of  particular  States.  All  America,  Congress  in 
their  resolves,  the  act  appointing  commissioners  to 
settle  the  accounts,  the  late  amendment  *  to  the  prop 
osition  for  assuming  the  State  debts,  and  the  objections 
to  that  proposition,  corroborate  the  idea  that  the  ex 
penses  of  the  war  ought  to  be  equalized.  Assume 
the  debts,  and  settle  the  accounts,  and  this  is  effected. 
There  is  an  end  to  the  inequality  as  soon  as  this  is 
done.  This  answer  is  so  plain  and  conclusive,  that  it 
is  attempted  to  take  off  its  force  by  saying  that  the 


*  Mr.  Madison's. 
5 


34 


accounts  will  not  be  settled.  If  this  assertion  is  true, 
the  non-assumption  is  plainly  unjust ;  for  the  burden 
is  confessedly  unequal  now,  and  the  only  reason  for 
refusing  to  take  this  burden  off  some  of  the  States  is 
the  certain  assurance  that  they  will  be  relieved  from 
so  much  as  shall  be  found  to  exceed  their  share,  when 
the  accounts  are  settled.  But,  if  the  accounts  are  not 
to  be  settled  at  all,  the  States,  which  are  now  over 
loaded,  have  no  justice  to  expect  but  from  the  assump 
tion.  It  cannot  be  known  with  certainty  which  will 
he  a  creditor,  or  which  a  debtor  State,  at  present. 
If  the  accounts  should  not  be  adjusted,  we  must 
remain  in  ignorance ;  we  ought,  therefore,  to  exclude 
all  consideration  of  the  other  claims,  because  it  would 
be  useless,  and  apply  the  principle  of  equality  to  the 
State  debts.  The  debts  to  be  assumed  are  either  duly 
proportioned  among  the  States,  or  they  are  not.  If 
they  are  so  proportioned,  then  it  is  certainly  politic, 
and  not  unjust,  because  it  would  be  equal,  to  assume 
them.  If  they  are  now  unduly  proportioned,  it  is  in 
terms  even  against  equality  to  leave  them  upon  the 
States. 

If  the  war  has  made  a  random  distribution  of  debts 
upon  the  States,  it  is  best  to  make  the  amount  which 
is  to  be  left  unsettled  as  little  as  may  be;  for  the 
probability  is  that  as  you  diminish  the  amoimts,  you 
make  the  inequalities  less.  This  will  serve  as  an 
answer  to  those  also  who  say  that  supposing  a  settle 
ment  to  take  place  two  or  three  years  hence,  a  State 
may  be  relieved  from  a  light  burden  of  its  own  debt, 
and  be  obliged  to  bear,  as  its  proportion  of  the  as 
sumed  debt,  one  .more  weighty.  For  it  is  not  certain 
that  it  will  have,  in  that  case,  more  to  bear  than  its 


35 


part ;  and,  if  it  should  turn  out  to  be  more,  the  bal 
ance  may  be  known  almost  as  soon  as  the  interest  will 
commence.  The  assertion  that  the  accounts  will  not 
be  settled  has  been  made  with  confidence.  To  judge 
how  far  we  ought  to  guide  our  conduct  by  it,  it  is 
enough  to  examine  what  State  it  comes  from.  Let 
the  gentlemen  who  make  it  a&k  their  own  hearts,  let 
them  look  round  and  ask  one  another,  whether  their 
States  are  more  clamorous  for  their  dues,  or  apprehen 
sive  of  a  settlement  which  will  expose  their  delin 
quency.  In  this  place,  where  facts  are  known,  this 
question  will  be  an  argument. 

But  what  ground  is  there  for  saying  that  the  ac 
counts  will  not  be  settled  I  This  was  positively 
engaged  by  the  former  government.  It  is  improper 
for  Congress  to  act  as  if  Congress  were  not  to  be 
trusted.  Commissioners  are  employed  in  the  business. 
A  motion  to  extend  their  time  and  powers  has  met 
with  no  opposition,  and  is  maturing  into  a  law.  Who 
will  oppose  it  I  Not  New  England  !  We  wish  it,  — 
we  have  pledged  ourselves  to  support  it ;  you  ought 
to  believe  us,  when  it  is  so  easy  to  bring  us  to  the  test. 
I  have  myself  moved  resolutions,  the  best  I  could 
devise,  which  I  thought  would  facilitate,  would 
force,  a  settlement.  I  am  ready  to  revive  them. 
Surely  those  who  urge  that  the  accounts  will  not  be 
settled  do  not  propose  to  fulfil  their  own  prophecy. 

It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  if  there  is  a  disposition 
in  this  House  to  prevent  proper  measures  from  being 
adopted  to  procure  a  settlement,  it  will  be  disap 
pointed.  I  wish  to  remove  this  ground  of  objection, 
by  urging  the  business  of  liquidation  forward.  If, 
then,  provision  is  to  be  made  for  liquidating  the 


36 


accounts,  the  argument  which  I  deduced  from  it 
remains  in  full  force.  All  pretence  of  inequality  is 
removed  by  it.  It  is  a  full  answer  to  several  other 
objections.  It  becomes  unnecessary  to  ask  whether 
State  notes  remain  debts  against  this  government  after 
they  have  been  received  into  the  State  treasuries, 
whether  the  United  States  is  bound  to  assume  before 
the  balances  are  found  on  a  settlement,  and  whether 
the  debts  were  wisely  or  unwisely  contracted.  It 
becomes  immaterial  to  calculate  how  many  parts  in  a 
hundred  New  Hampshire,  and  how  many  Connecticut, 
will  pay,  and  how  much  Virginia  has  paid  and  will 
now  have  to  pay.  What  was  wrong  in  the  distribu 
tions  of  the  war  will  be  rectified ;  and,  as  to  future 
payments,  all  the  citizens  will  be  upon  a  footing.  As 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia  reasons  with  great  can 
dor,  I  am  sure  he  will  be  sorry  that,  in  his  observations, 
he  has  wholly  neglected,  certainly  through  inadver 
tency,  to  notice  an  argument  which  seems,  on  both 
sides,  to  be  considered  as  absolutely  conclusive.  When 
I  say  that  both  sides  allow  this  argument  to  be  con 
clusive,  I  presume  my  meaning  is  understood  as  I  for 
merly  expressed  it.  For  the  answer  to  it  is  that  the 
accounts  will  not  be  settled  ;  which  admits  the  force 
of  the  reason,  and  rests  the  decision  upon  a  point 
of  fact. 

Perhaps,  for  the  sake  of  simplicity  and  perspicuity, 
I  ought  not  to  pursue  the  inquiry  as  to  the  justice  of 
the  assumption  any  further.  Though  I  mean  to  rely 
on  the  argument  I  have  stated,  it  will  furnish  an  an 
swer  to  some  objections  to  furnish  another.  It  is 
said,  These  are  State  debts ;  Congress  has  nothing  to 
do  with  them. 


When  the  war  commenced,  Congress  had  neither 
money  nor  troops.  They  were  so  far  from  having  a 
right  to  tax  the  States,  that  they  had  neither  the 
powers  of  a  government  nor  a  rule  by  which  to  re 
quire  contributions.  They  appealed  to  the  good-will 
arid  patriotism  of  the  States,  and  entreated  them  to 
furnish  supplies  to  the  extent  of  their  power.  The 
calls  upon  the  States  were  not  taxes  or  debts,  but  ad 
vances  or  loans  to  the  public.  This  is  explicitly  and 
formally  declared  by  the  resolves  of  Congress.  I  have 
made  some  attempt  to  examine  the  journals,  in  order 
to  show  from  them  how  utterly  unfounded  the  asser 
tion  is  that  these  constituted  debts  against  the  States. 
But  I  found  that  the  titles  only  of  the  resolves  would 
fill  a  sheet  of  paper.  Nothing  can  be  more  fully 
proved  than  the  contrary,  not  only  by  the  letter  of  the 
resolves,  but  by  the  conduct  of  Congress.  In  some 
cases  no  regard  was  paid  to  the  conjectural  ratio  by 
which  the  States  ought  to  furnish  men  and  supplies. 
In  other  instances  some  of  the  States  were  wholly 
omitted,  and  not  unfrequently  a  single  State  was 
called  upon  for  supplies.  One  of  the  most  signal 
proofs,  however,  is  that  in  the  resolves  of  Feb.  9, 
1780,  it  is  expressly  stipulated  that  if  the  States 
should  furnish  more  than  they  are  called  upon  for, 
the  United  States  will  stand  charged  with  it.  The 
resolve  of  Jan.  5,  1783,  even  in  terms,  recognizes 
the  troops  whom  the  States  were  to  settle  with  as 
creditors  of  the  Union,  for  whom  good  security  must 
be  provided. 

This  is  an  inquiry  into  the  justice  of  the  assump 
tion.  I  reject,  therefore,  the  forms  of  the  transaction, 
and  ask  whether,  if  the  war  had  been  confined  to  a 


38 


corner,  instead  of  spreading  over  the  continent,  and 
one  State  had  incurred  the  whole  debt  of  eighty 
millions,  it  would  be  just  to  leave  the  burden  upon 
that  State  ?  Consistently  with  the  resolves  I  have 
mentioned,  and  the  known  sense  of  America,  could  it 
be  called  a  State  debt  ?  I  am  sure  of  my  answer,  for 
the  question  extorts  it.  The  difference  between  the 
case  I  have  supposed  and  that  which  is  in  debate  is 
only  in  degree  ;  there  is  none  in  the  principle. 

It  will  be  answered,  perhaps,  that  it  is  true  we  owe 
the  States.  They  are  not  finally  to  bear  the  burden  ; 
let  them  pay  what  they  owe,  and  we  will  pay  them. 
This  is  a  dangerous  concession  to  those  who  make  it, 
if  the  accounts  are  never  to  be  settled,  as  it  is  urged  by 
those  who  contend  against  the  assumption.  For  it 
amounts  to  this,  —  the  debt  is  binding,  and  yet  it  will 
never  be  paid.  It  presents  them  a  choice  of  diffi 
culties  ;  it  forces  them  to  confess  either  that  the 
assumption  will  not  wrong  you  or  that  the  non-as 
sumption  will  end  in  cheating  such  of  the  States  as 
are  your  creditors. 

It  will  be  said,  it  is  true,  however,  that  the  United 
States  stands  indebted  to  the  States,  but  the  creditors 
of  the  States  have  no  just  claim  upon  the  United 
States.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  the 
justice  that  will  be  done  by  the  assumption  to  the 
States  and  to  their  creditors. 

The  States  were  called  upon  during  the  war  to 
make  advances.  Accordingly  they  procured  some 
thing  by  taxation,  and  still  more  was  procured  by 
paper  money,  which  died  in  the  hands  of  the  posses 
sor.  They  have  also  paid  some  part  since  the  peace. 
So  far  the  States,  as  such,  actually  made  advances ; 


but  the  principal  part  was  obtained  either  by  borrow 
ing,  or  seizing  private  property,  or  drafting  men. 
So  far  the  advances  were  made  by  individuals,  and  at 
periods  so  critical  and  under  such  circumstances  of 
violence  and  hardship,  as  to  give  a  peculiar  sanction 
to  their  claim  upon  the  honor  and  justice  of  their 
country.  Justice  plainly  requires  that  these  persons 
should  be  paid  their  interest  at  least,  in  all  events, 
and  without  delay.  Their  claims  in  every  view  are 
perfect ;  most  of  them  are  original  holders.  But 
neither  the  justice  of  the  case  nor  the  engagements  of 
Congress  require  that  the  States  should  be  repaid, 
until  the  extent  of  their  demand  can  be  known.  For 
I  readily  admit  that  nothing  more  than  the  balances 
of  their  actual  advances  are  due  from  the  United 
States  to  the  individual  States.  This  has  been  urged 
against  the  assumption,  but  without  foundation.  If  a 
State  paid  more  than  its  proper  share,  the  surplus 
should  be  repaid.  But  if  a  payment  was  only  prom 
ised,  and  is  still*  to  be  made,  justice  is  due  to  the 
creditors,  and  not  to  the  State.  The  idea  may  be 
illustrated  by  considering  the  States  as  agents  or  con 
tractors  for  the  Union  ;  what  they  paid  they  claim  for 
themselves ;  what  they  barely  promised  should  be 
paid  by  their  employers,  who  had  the  benefit  of  the 
debt,  especially  if  the  agent  cannot  or  will  not  pay. 
I  cannot  think  it  necessary  to  give  any  further  answer 
to  the  question  so  logically  proposed  with  regard  to 
the  nature  of  the  debts  when  redeemed  and  in  the 
State  treasuries. 

What  remains  due  ought  to  fall  not  unequally  upon 
States,  but  upon  the  whole  society.  It  ought,  if  not 
paid  sooner,  to  fall  upon  posterity.  If  some  States 


40 


should  lose  wealth  and  people,  and  others  increase ; 
if  new  States  should  join  the  Union,  or  spring  up 
within  it,  and  the  western  wilderness  be-  thronged 
with  people,  —  the  burden  will  be  equalized  upon  all 
the  citizens.  Liberty  and  independence  were  procured 
for  the  whole,  and  for  posterity:  why,  then,  should 
not  all  contribute  to  the  price  ? 

As  it  respects  the  army  debt,  the  very  terms  of  the 
bargain  bind  the  United  States.  Congress  promised 
to  pay  the  men,  but  called  upon  the  States  to  raise 
them.  Afterwards,  when  the  paper  failed,  the  States 
were  required  to  make  up  the  depreciation.  State 
notes  were  given  for  it,  which  remain  due.  Prob 
ably  all  the  States  cannot  pay.  In  this  instance, 
not  only  justice,  but  your  plighted  faith,  require  you 
to  pay  them  ;  you  have  asked  their  services,  and  had 
them  ;  you  have  promised  to  reward  them,  and  they 
remain  unrewarded.  I  have  already  supposed  the 
case  of  the  whole  debt  being  thrown  upon  one  State. 
If,  instead  of  the  whole  debt,  its  zeal,  or  the  necessity 
of  its  affairs,  had  pressed  a  State  forward  to  exceed, 
and,  in  its  distress,  to  disregard,  its  ability  to  pay,  and 
it  accordingly  had  run  in  debt  three  times  as  much  as 
it  can  pay ;  if  the  Avar  had  scattered  its  citizens  and 
wasted  its  property,  —  are  the  officers  and  soldiers, 
who  expelled  the  enemy,  and  who  did  not  care  which 
State  line  they  served  in,  to  be  told,  You  served  the 
United  State's,  but  you  are  creditors  of  South  Caro 
lina  ]  It  is  true  you  shed  your  blood  for  us  ;  by  your 
valor  we  sit  here ;  we  have  seen  your  wrongs,  and 
when  it  would  do  you  no  good,  because  we  had  no 
power,  we  told  the  world  how  deeply  we  lamented 
them  ;  but  go  home  and  starve.  Would  not  this 


41 


wring  drops  from  their  hearts,  and  plant  thorns  in 
our  own  ] 

The  like  reasoning  will  apply  to  another  descrip 
tion  of  the  debts  to  be  assumed,  —  to  the  certificates 
given  by  the  commissaries  and  other  officers  of  the 
United  States,  and  since  assumed  by  the  particular 
States.  You  cannot  deny  your  own  by  calling  them 
State  debts.  A  great  part  of  the  debt  of  South  Caro 
lina  is  said  to  be  a  debt  of  that  kind.  Is  that  State 
to  be  crushed  with  a  weight  which  it  cannot  bear,  or 
are  the  creditors  to  be  ruined  because  the  State  will 
be  undone  if  they  are  not  I  Or  how  will  this  comport 
with  the  principle,  admitted  on  both  sides,  of  equal 
izing  the  expenses  of  the  war  ] 

The  best  fund  of  the  States,  and  hitherto  the  only 
one  of  the  Union, —  the  impost,  —  has  been  taken  away 
by  adopting  the  Constitution.  Let  the  debts  follow  the 
funds.  Let  the  world  judge  whether  the  generous 
confidence  of  the  State  creditors  in  the  public  justice 
ought  to  be  abused,  and  whether  they  ought  to  be 
made  to  repent  the  cordial  support  which  they  gave  to 
the  new  Constitution.  The  force  of  this  argument  may 
be  inferred  from  the  uncommon  pains  which  have  been 
taken  to  destroy  it.  The  fact  is  denied,  and  the  issue 
of  the  question  has  been  boldly  rested  upon  this  point, 
that  the  States  most  urgent  for  the  assumption  were 
not  incapacitated  from  providing  for  their  debts  by  the 
surrender  of  the  impost.  The  impost  collected  in  New 
Hampshire  is  called  the  amount  of  that  State's  con 
tribution  to  the  Union ;  and  the  ratio  by  which  she 
ought  to  contribute  is  taken  from  her  present  represen 
tation.  I  waive,  at  this  moment,  all  comment  upon 
the  unfairness  and  fallacy  of  this  mode  of  computation. 


42 


I  proceed  to  observe  that  an  uncommon  use  is  made 
of  the  result.  According  to  her  number  of  Represen 
tatives,  that  State  ought  to  pay  one-twentieth,  and  yet 
no  more  than  a  hundredth  part  of  the  impost  of  the 
Union  is  paid  by  that  State,  or  rather  collected  in  it. 
Of  course,  it  is  gravely  said,  it  will  save  four-fifths  of 
the  sum  which  it  would  have  to  pay  if  the  debt  had 
been  assessed  before  the  Constitution  was  framed ;  and 
this  saving  to  the  State  may  apply  to  the  discharge  of 
its  debt.  But,  sir,  such  requisitions  never  were  paid, 
and  never  could  have  been  paid,  by  the  States.  Experi 
ence  had  taught  us  that  it  was  not  to  be  expected,  nor 
was  it  in  their  power.  This,  indeed,  was  one  of  the 
principal  reasons  for  adopting  the  Constitution.  Are 
we  seriously  addressed,  when  we  are  told  that  the 
savings  of  a  revenue,  which  did  not  exist,  —  that  four- 
fifths  of  nothing  may  be  applied  to  pay  the  State 
creditors  1  Without  further  regarding  the  ridicule  of 
the  argument,  let  us  trace  the  fact.  The  debt  of  New 
Hampshire  is  said  to  be  about  $230,000  ;  the  yearly 
interest,  at  four  per  cent,  is  upwards  of  $9,000.  The 
impost  and  tonnage  collected  in  that  State,  from 
August  to  December,  is  near  $8,000.  So  that  the 
impost  of  that  State,  though  far  short  of  her  actual 
contribution  to  the  common  treasury,  will,  in  the 
whole  year,  greatly  exceed  their  interest,  which  assum 
ing  her  debt  will  throw  upon  the  United  States.  Here, 
then,  the  fund  surrendered  by  that  State  is  more  than 
adequate  to  the  debt  which  ought  to  follow  it.  The 
whole  cause  has  been  hazarded  on  the  fact,  and  here 
the  fact  is  against  him  who  appealed  to  it.  May  I  be 
permitted  to  ask  whether  it  is  not  to  be  lamented,  that 
through  inadvertency  or  mistake  the  whole  fact  was 


4:3 


not  mentioned  ?  May  I  demand  why  the  non-import 
ing  States  were  preferred  to  the  importing  States  for 
calculating  the  impost?  Massachusetts  collected,  un 
der  a  State  law,  near  $150,000  impost  yearly.  This 
falls  short  of  the  present  collection,  under  the  law  of 
the  Union,  which  is  nearly  equal  to  the  interest  of  her 
debt.  The  excise  would  have  supplied  the  deficiency, 
and  that  fund  you  are  about  to  invade.  It  would  be 
wrong  to  take  away  funds,  though  inferior  to  the  dis 
charge  of  interest,  and  yet  leave  the  whole  debt  upon 
the  State.  If  the  funds  surrendered  were  equal  to  the 
debts,  it  has  been  admitted  that  the  Union  ought  to 
take  the  debts  also.  The  injustice  of  rejecting  the 
debts,  and  taking  the  impost  to  a  less  amount,  differs 
only  in  degree.  But  why  was  New  York  passed  over 
in  silence]  The  interest  of  the  debt  of  that  State 
would  not  equal  the  impost  collected  within  it.  What 
will  you  say  to  that  State  I 

The  candor  and  impartiality  of  the  Committee  will 
be  exercised  in  deciding  whether  the  arguments  so 
often  urged  in  favor  of  the  assumption,  that  you  ought 
to  take  the  debts  with  the  impost,  has  lost  any  thing 
of  its  force  by  this  investigation  of  facts.  What  is 
asserted  on  one  side,  and  denied  on  the  other,  after  a 
strict  inquiry,  ends  in  the  same  point. 

There  is  another  view  of  the  subject  to  be  taken. 
It  is  allowed  that  the  people  pay  duties  in  proportion 
as  they  consume  dutied  articles.  The  consumption  in 
the  several  States  is  nearly  according  to  the  numbers 
of  the  people.  It  will  be  as  fair  in  this  as  in  former 
calculation  to  take  the  number  of  Representatives  as 
our  rule  to  compute  the  proportions  which  the  several 
States  contribute  by  the  consumption  of  articles 


44 


charged  with  duties.  The  impost  of  New  Hampshire 
and  Massachusetts,  collected  within  the  period  from 
August  to  December,  and  added  together,  was  nearly 
one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  dollars.  Allow  the 
former  three  parts  in  eleven,  according  to  her  repre 
sentation,  and  it  will  appear  that  her  citizens  paid 
thirty-two  thousand  seven  hundred  dollars  of  the 
whole  sum.  Less  than  eight  thousand  dollars  were 
collected  within  the  State.  In  case  the  debts  should 
not  be  assumed,  but  should  be  provided  for  by  State 
duties  and  excises,  according  to  these  principles,  the 
citizens  of  New  Hampshire  would  have  to  pay  five 
thousand  dollars  a  month,  or  at  the  rate  of  twenty-five 
thousand  dollars  from  August  to  December,  into  the 
treasury  of  Massachusetts.  Connecticut,  in  like  man 
ner,  would  have  to  pay,  within  an  equal  period,  fifty- 
four  thousand  dollars ;  and  Jersey,  if  reckoned  with 
New  York,  would  have  to  pay  sixty  thousand  dollars, 
and  with  Pennsylvania  still  more.  In  a  whole  year, 
this  tribute  which  one  State  would  exact  from'  another 
would  amount  to  very  large  sums.  North  Carolina  is 
a  non-importing  State,  and,  in  common  with  the  others 
before  mentioned,  would  have  to  pay  for  the  debt  of 
its  neighbors,  and  then  to  provide  for  its  own.  Is 
there  any  justice  or  cause  of  discord  and  violence 
charged  or  even  imagined  against  the  assumption 
equal  to  this  ?  And  yet  we  hear  it  said,  Let  us  leave 
the  States  to  pay  their  debts  for  themselves. 

Perhaps  we  shall  never  be  agreed  as  to  what  is 
policy.  On  great  questions,  when  the  judgment  should 
be  cool,  the  passions  most  frequently  interpose,  and 
disturb  its  decisions  ;  and  this  is  most  likely  to  happen 
where  public  men  are  zealously  faithful  to  their  trust. 


45 


But  it  is  otherwise  with  our  sense  of  justice.  Our  pity, 
our  gratitude,  our  resentments,  may  mislead  us  ;  but 
of  all  the  operations  of  the  moral  sense,  the  most  pre 
cise  and  infallible  is  our  sense  of  justice.  The  heart 
acts  as  our  interpreter,  and  guides  us  to  certainty ; 
injury  or  wrong  is  the  opposite  of  justice.  I  appeal  to 
that  moral  sense,  to  that  law  written  upon  the  heart, 
and  confidently  ask  whether  you  can  impose  this  bur 
den  upon  the  States  and  call  it  equality;  whether 
you  can  reject  the  claims  of  their  creditors,  and  call  it 
justice.  As  to  the  policy  of  the  assumption,  to  object 
is  always  easy.  It  is  not  hard  to  show  how  many  little 
objections  a  great  measure  will  be  liable  to  ;  but  in  a 
question  of  policy,  we  are  commonly  obliged  to  dis 
regard  little  things  for  the  sake  of  great  ones  :  nor  can 
complete  proof  be  given  of  the  affirmative  ;  for  when 
it  is  asserted  that  bad  consequences  will  ensue,  time 
only  can  fully  prove  that  they  will  not.  I  neither  ex 
pect  nor  pretend  to  overcome  every  doubt,  when  I 
undertake  to  show  that  it  is  more  safe  and  prudent  to 
assume  than  not  to  assume  the  State  debts.  When 
we  speak  of  policy,  what  is  meant  by  the  term]  A 
measure  is  said  to  be  against  wise  policy,  when  it 
tends  to  prevent  good,  or  to  produce  evil.  It  re 
spects  either  the  government  or  the  citizens:  as  it 
respects  government,  will  the  assumption  diminish  its 
power,  or  embarrass  the  exercise  of  it]  Or  as  re 
gards  the  people,  will  it  produce  evil,  and  not  good] 

This  measure  can  neither  increase  nor  diminish  the 
power  of  the  government ;  for  the  power  to  be  exer 
cised  is  expressly  given  it  by  the  Constitution.  Will 
it  embarrass  the  exercise  of  power  ]  The  contrary  is 
true  ;  it  removes  impediments  which  will  be  in  its 


way,  if  not  assumed.  Experience  has  taught  us,  to 
our  cost,  how  very  pernicious  these  obstacles  are. 
The  systems  of  State  revenues,  before  the  Constitu 
tion  was  formed,  had  crushed  industry  and  almost 
ruined  trade  from  State  to  State. 

Will  its  tendency  be  to  evil  rather  than  to  common 
benefit?  This,  it  is  true,  is  a  vague  as  well  as  a  com 
plex  question  ;  but  its  great  objects  are  to  establish 
justice,  to  produce  equality  of  burdens  and  benefits, 
an  uniform  revenue  system,  to  secure  public  credit  by 
removing  every  example  of  bad  faith,  and  to  prevent 
all  interference  between  the  national  and  State  gov 
ernments,  and  the  dangerous  usurpation  of  the  one 
upon  the  other,  which  would  be  the  consequence. 

How  can  it  be  said  that  policy  is  against  the 
measure,  if  its  tendency  be  such  I  Much  has  been 
said  about  consolidation.  Certainly  it  cannot  be 
usurpation  for  Congress  to  pay  the  debts,  which 
were  contracted  either  by  itself  or  at  its  own  request 
by  the  States.  The  State  governments  are  said  to  be 
in  danger  of  a  consolidation.  That,  however,  is  not  the 
only,  probably  not  the  greatest,  danger  they  have  to  risk: 
disunion  is  still  more  formidable.  Nothing  can  shelter 
the  small  States  from  the  greater  ones  but  union ;  nor 
would  any  single  State  be  safe  against  the  combination 
of  several  States.  All  would  be  exposed  to  foreign 
foes.  If  you  make  the  State  governments  strong  by 
taking  strength  from  the  Union,  they  become  exposed 
exactly  in  the  degree  you  do  it.  For  the  principle  of 
union  ought  to  be  strong  in  proportion  to  the  strength 
of  the  members.  In  a  compound  ratio,  therefore,  you 
make  the  national  government  too  weak  to  combine 
the  whole  together,  and  you  expose  governments 


47 


and  citizens  to  the  caprice  of  accidents,  and  to  the 
fury  of  passions,  which  will  confound  laws,  liberty, 
and  government. 

It  is  true,  a  body  of  valuable  citizens  will  be  attached 
to  the  government ;  all  good  citizens  should  love  the 
government,  and  they  will  do  so,  if  government  should 
deserve  their  love.  Revenue  powers  are  given  to 
Congress  without  reserve.  To  say  that  it  is  dangerous 
and  improper  to  exercise  them  is  a  charge  against  the 
Constitution. 

There  are  but  three  points  of  view  to  consider  the 
State  governments  in,  —  either  as  rivals  for  power,  as 
watchmen,  or  as  legislators  within  the  State.  To  call 
them  rivals  would  be  an  avowal  of  the  principle  of 
disunion,  or  rather  of  positive  force,  which  is  absurd. 
I  do  not  know  that  either  the  State  or  national  Con 
stitutions  have  given  them  the  office  to  watch  this 
government.  The  people  are  to  watch  us  all,  and  I 
wish  they  always  may.  But  if  the  State  governments 
are  still  called  watchmen,  that  office  may  be  performed 
as  well,  perhaps  better,  without  than  with  the  incum- 
brance  of  their  debts.  It  is  equally  difficult  to  see 
how  it  can  impair  the  rights  of  internal  legislation. 
The  assumption  and  an  uniform  plan  of  revenue  will 
take  away  not  only  all  pretext,  but  every  motive,  for 
encroachment  upon  them.  If,  by  the  non-assumption, 
an  interference  is  produced,  their  danger  will  be  the 
more  imminent.  For  if  they  prevail  in  the  conflict, 
they  will  be  destroyed  by  disunion ;  if  they  fail,  they 
will  be  swallowed  up  in  the  consolidation.  I  wish, 
among  other  reasons,  to  have  the  assumption  take 
place,  because  I  think  it  will  give  us  the  best  se 
curity  that  our  government  will  be  administered  as  it 


•43 


was  made,  without  suffering  or  making  encroach 
ments. 

I  hasten  to  notice  some  objections.  A  public  debt 
is  called  a  public  evil,  and  the  assumption  is  charged 
with  tending  to  perpetuate  and  increase  it.  I  am  not 
disposed  to  dispute  about  words,  though  I  believe  the 
debt,  as  a  bond  of  union,  will  compensate  the  burden 
of  providing  for  it.  But  I  cannot  admit  that  it  is  a 
greater  evil  to  owe  a  debt  than  to  wipe  it  off  without 
paying  it ;  and  if  the  whole  debt  is  to  be  paid^  at  all 
events  the  assumption  makes  no  increase  ;  nay,  if  the 
modification  first  proposed  should  be  made,  the  capital 
will  be  diminished  near  thirteen  millions  by  this 
measure.  It  is  said  to  be  easier  to  pay  eighty  millions 
by  leaving  the  State  debts  to  be  paid  by  the  States, 
and  paying  the  other  debt  ourselves,  than  to  form  the 
whole  into  one  debt. 

By  this  division  in  the  debt,  if  there  is  any  force  in 
the  objection  that  we  can  pay  more,  or  that  we  shall 
pay  what  may  be  collected  more  easily,  —  first,  let  us 
see  whether  this  is  true  as  to  what  the  States  will 
have  to  provide  for.  As  it  respects  South  Carolina, 
the  contrary  is  confessedly  true.  So  far  is  it  from 
being  a  more  easy  way  of  paying,  that  they  cannot 
pay  at  all.  If  Massachusetts  can  pay  her  interest,  it 
will  be  with  extreme  difficulty.  One  gentleman  ob 
served  that  her  efforts  had  raised  a  rebellion.  It  is 
certain  that  they  have  not  succeeded.  The  price  of 
State  paper  in  most  of  the  States  has  been  a  proof  of 
their  incapacity  to  make  effectual  provision. 

The  State  debts  are  to  be  paid,  or  they  are  not.  If 
by  leaving  them  upon  the  States  they  will  be  lost  to 
the  creditors,  that  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  the  more 


49 


convenient  way  of  paying  part  of  eighty  millions,  which 
is  intended  by  the  argument.  Besides  the  shock  to 
public  credit,  it  would  be  the  loss  of  so  much  prop 
erty.  The  disaster  would  probably  be  more  felt  than 
some  of  the  greatest  physical  evils,  such  as  inunda 
tion,  or  blasting  the  earth  for  a  time  with  barrenness. 
If,  then,  the  debts  are  to  be  paid,  by  what  means  ? 
The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  strongly  reprobated 
excises.  The  States  cannot  touch  the  impost.  What 
remains  ?  Direct  taxes  only.  This  source  will  be  soon 
exhausted.  The  land-tax  of  England  is  not  more 
than  a  sixth  part  of  its  income.  They  have  carried 
it  as  far  as  they  think  prudent.  Why  should  not 
labor  and  stock  contribute  as  well  as  land  ?  For  these 
give  the  chief  value  to  its  products.  It  cannot  be  ex 
pected  that  the  debt  will  be  safe  to  rest  upon  the  land- 
tax.  It  is  not  even  mortgaged  at  all  in  England.  If 
our  entire  funds  are  barely  sufficient,  merely  a  single 
fund,  and  that  not  the  best,  will  be  inadequate.  It  is 
a  better  one  in  England  than  in  America ;  for  the  wild 
land  makes  it  impossible  to  impose  very  heavy  taxes 
upon  the  old  settlements  ;  the  oppressed  people  will 
fly  beyond  the  reach  of  collectors.  It  is,  besides, 
much  more  easy  to  procure  the  money  in  England 
than  in  America.  Land-taxes  are  not  only  insufficient, 
but  liable  to  other  objections.  Land  is  to  be  taxed 
according  to  quantity  or  value.  If  the  former,  it  will 
not  produce  much.  If  according  to  value,  then  you  must 
resort  to  arbitrary  assessments,  more  obnoxious  than 
excises.  Every  farmer  almost  can  attest  the  force  of 
this  objection.  The  expense,  too,  is  small,  in  England  ; 
in  this  country  it  is  otherwise.  Taxes  on  land  have  cost 
as  much  to  collect  as  excises.  In  one  of  the  States  I 

7 


50 


am  told  that  the  collection  has  been  estimated  at  thirty 
per  cent.  Experience,  too,  has  proved  that  the  States 
cannot  pay  their  debts  by  direct  taxes.  It  has  been 
pushed  to  the  utmost  extent,  and  found  insufficient. 

The  argument  which  has  been  urged  by  the  gentle 
man  from  Virginia  against  excises  seems  to  exclude 
this  mode  of  revenue  ;  without  it,  the  State  debts  can 
not  be  provided  for.  The  United  States  will  be  com 
pelled  to  resort  to  it.  It  is  absolutely  necessary  for 
drawing  forth  the  resources  of  the  country.  As  every 
man  consumes,  every  man  will  contribute,  including 
foreigners  and  transient  people.  Imposts  cannot  be 
carried  far  without  defeating  the  collection.  Duties 
on  the  imported  spirits  would  increase  the  use  of 
home-made  spirits,  which  cannot  be  reached  without 
an  excise.  All  taxes  are  in  some  degree  unequal,  but 
excises  probably  as  little  so  as  any.  The  rates  are 
fixed,  and  very  little  is  left  to  imposition  and  caprice. 
Besides,  every  consumer  taxes  himself. 

If,  then,  Congress  should  not  lay  excises,  the  best 
source  of  revenue  will  be  lost.  I  am  persuaded  public 
credit  cannot  be  supported  without  them.  It  seems  to 
be  a  matter  of  equal  necessity  that  the  States  should 
impose  them.  But  the  States  cannot  do  it  with  con 
venience  or  much  effect,  for  they  cannot  make  them 
general.  They  will  vary  in  the  States,  and  hold  out 
temptations  to  an  infinity  of  frauds.  The  States  are 
restrained  from  regulating  foreign  trade,  or  that  from 
State  to  State.  With  such  vast  frontiers  to  watch,  and 
their  powers  on  the  importation  and  passage  of  goods 
by  land  so  much  restrained,  and  their  laws  obstructed 
and  controverted  by  the  laws  of  the  Union,  much  of 
the  collection  will  be  defeated.  The  excise  in  Massa- 


51 


chusetts  and  Connecticut,  it  is  supposed,  has  not  pro 
duced  ten  shillings  in  the  pound  of  what  it  might  be 
made  to  yield.  I  do  not  pretend  that  there  is  less 
wisdom  in  the  States,  but  they  labor  under  almost  in 
surmountable  difficulties.  It  is  doubtful  whether  they 
will  be  able  to  collect  much ;  and,  if  they  should,  the 
burden  of  these  rival  laws  has  been  found  nearly  equal 
to  another  tax. 

Besides,  one  State  will  tax  another.  The  consum 
ers  will  go  to  the  most  convenient  market.  So  that  the 
attempt  to  make  each  State  pay  its  own  debt  will  be 
defeated  ;  and  the  payment  will  fall  as  unequally  as  if 
the  assumption  should  take  place,  and  the  accounts 
not  settled.  New  Hampshire,  Connecticut,  Jersey, 
and  North  Carolina  would  pay  almost  wholly  into  the 
treasuries  of  the  neighboring  States.  The  non-im 
porting.  States  will  be  obliged  also  to  impose  direct 
taxes  to  pay  their  creditors,  so  that  their  citizens  will 
be  doubly  taxed.  If  State  excises,  then,  are  so  unequal, 
and  yield  so  little,  where  are  these  mysterious  State 
resources,  which  are  inaccessible  to  Congress  1  If 
they  are  not  of  an  incommunicable  nature,  we  can 
judge  by  hearing  the  subjects  of  taxation  named.  It 
ought  to  appear  that  such  exist,  and  that  Congress 
could  not  draw  them  forth. 

If  you  reject  excises,  you  cannot  have  an  adequate 
revenue  ;  and  if  the  States  have  also  excises,  the  rev 
enue  will  be  impoverished  and  hazarded.  For  if  an 
article  can  pay  both  duties,  there  is  a  loss  to  get  but 
one,  and  it  might  as  well  be  collected  throughout  the 
United  States  as  in  one  State ;  and  if  it  cannot  pay 
both  duties,  one  or  both  treasuries  will  suffer  for  the 
loss.  Besides,  you  incur  a  double  expense  in  collect 
ing  them. 


52 


What  revenues  are  left  you,  if  the  excise  is  rejected  ? 
With  such  a  slender  sum  you  cannot  offer  new  terms. 
The  modification  of  the  entire  debt,  as  first  proposed, 
makes  a  saving  in  the  capital  of  almost  thirteen  mil 
lions.  The  debt  to  be  assumed  is  about  twenty-four. 
The  interest  on  the  difference,  or  on  the  real  increase 
of  debt  by  assuming,  is  less  than  five  hundred  thousand 
dollars  yearly. 

We  depend  upon  two  principles  for  the  security  of 
the  revenues.  One  is  that  the  trading  people  will  not 
be  disposed  to  offend  ;  and  the  other  is  that  all  others 
will  be  inclined  to  watch  and  expose  them  if  they 
should.  Never  was  so  popular  a  revenue  system. 
But  the  violence  to  the  just  demand  of  the  creditors, 
depriving  them  of  the  money  they  have  been  used  to 
receive,  and  creating  in  the  States  an  interest  to  have 
your  collection  fail,  in  order  to  make  the  State  funds 
effectual,  will  produce  a  most  disastrous  change.  It 
is  setting  men's  interests,  as  well  as  opinions,  against 
you.  ^  Nor  will  the  landed  interest  have  a  different 
sentiment ;  for  they  will  be  murmuring  under  the  load 
of  direct  taxes,  and  the  more  the  State  revenues  can 
be  improved  by  lessening  the  national,  the  less  they 
will  have  to  bear. 

What  reason,  then,  is  there  for  asserting  that  more 
money  can  be  obtained,  and  more  easily,  by  several 
systems  than  by  one  ?  This  bold  assertion,  which  the 
sense  of  America  would  refute,  if  its  experience  had 
not  done  it  already,  is  not  true  of  imposts.  I  have 
endeavored  to  expose  its  fallacy  with  regard  to  State 
excises.  They  produce  much  evil  and  little  money. 
Direct  taxes,  insufficient  as  they  are,  can  be  imposed 
by  Congress  to  any  amount,  which  ought  to  be  re- 


53 


quired,  as  well  as  by  the  States ;  and  I  do  not  know 
that  they  would  be  more  obnoxious.  It  is  true,  just 
complaint  is  made  of  their  unequal  operation,  and  I 
trust  that  Congress  will  not  be  under  the  necessity  to 
call  for  them.  What  advantages  for  taxation  do  the 
States  possess  over  Congress  \  We  ought  not  to 
admit  that  any  such  exist  till  the  reasons  and  facts  are 
made  known  to  us;  which  has  not  yet  been  done. 

Without  adequate  funds,  the  States  cannot  propose 
to  their  creditors  a  modification  of  the  debt.  By  the 
Constitution  they  are  restrained  from  passing  laws  to 
impair  contracts.  The  burden  will  rest  upon  the 
States,  if  not  assumed,  at  six  per  cent ;  for,  without 
funds,  the  creditors  will  not  consent  to  take  less:  if 
assumed,  upon  Congress  at  four.  Is  this  the  more 
easy  way  of  paying  part  of  eighty  millions  ?  It  makes 
a  difference  of  several  millions  against  the  public. 

If  we  commit  an  error  by  not  assuming,  it  will  be 
an  expensive  one.  Have  we  funds  so  abundant  and 
safe  that  we  may  divide  and  wrangle  with  impu 
nity  ?  But  we  are  told  that  there  will  probably  be  an 
assumption  at  the  next  session,  and  that  it  is  improper 
to  pass  a  decision  at  the  present,  especially  as  imme 
diate  provision  is  not  to  be  made,  and  as  delay  will 
reconcile  men's  minds  to  the  measure.  This  is  plau 
sible,  but  at  least  it  is  yielding  the  great  point  as  to  the 
principle.  If  the  business  should  be  referred  to  the 
next  session,  with  the  intent  then  to  assume,  the  States 
will  not  impose  taxes  and  frame  funding  systems  for 
half  a  year.  In  the  mean  time,  this  state  of  their 
paper  will  make  it  the  subject  of  the  most  pernicious 
speculation.  It  will  be  engrossed  for  a  trifle  by  for 
eigners,  and  at  the  same  time  aggravate  the  scarcity  of 


54 


money  by  employing  what  there  is  in  purchases.  In 
this  state  of  suspense  and  loss,  will  the  public  mind 
become  tranquil?  Will  it  unite  the  two  sorts  of  credi 
tors  ?  But,  though  you  delay  the  interest  on  the  State 
debts  to  1792,  you  pass  the  revenue  laws  as  soon  as 
possible.  By  delay  you  will  lose  the  revenue  which 
may  accumulate  prior  to  that  time.  Suppose  a  million 
and  a  half  obtained  before  the  payment  of  interest 
shall  begin,  that  sum  will  secure  the  interest  against 
any  probable  deficiency  of  the  duties  for  two  or  three 
years.  Will  not  the  public,  will  not  the  creditors  of 
every  description,  derive  advantage  from  an  immediate 
assumption  and  establishment  of  duties,  and  from  the 
proposed  delay  of  paying  interest'? 

It  is  an  unusual  thing  for  a  gentleman  in  a  public 
assembly  to  assert  that  four-fifths  of  the  people  are  of 
his  way  of  thinking.  This,  however,  has  been  done. 
It  is  not  strange  to  mistake  their  own  opinion  for  that 
of  the  public.  These  fond  prepossessions  may  be 
received  instead  of  evidence,  but  they  cannot  weigh 
much  against  evidence.  My  information  may  have 
been  less  diligently  sought,  and  less  carefully  exam 
ined,  than  that  gentleman's  ;  but  I  have  compared  it 
with  what  has  been  gathered  by  my  friends,  and  I 
declare  that  I  believe  four-fifths  of  the  wise  and  worthy 
men,  in  a  very  wide  extent  of  country,  look  with 
strong  disapprobation  upon  the  injustice,  and  with 
anxious  terror  upon  the  impolicy,  of  rejecting  the 
State  debts. 

Little  notice  has  been  taken  of  an  argument  for  the 
assumption,  which,  if  just,  is  entitled  to  a  great  deal. 
I  mean  that  which  has  been  urged  to  show  that  it  will 
strengthen  the  government.  The  answer  given  is, 


55 


that,  instead  of  pecuniary  influence,  new  powers  are 
wanting  to  the  Constitution.  This  is  not  denying  the 
argument,  but  asserting  a  proposition  which,  if  false, 
is  to  be  disregarded,  and,  if  true,  is  not  inconsistent 
with  the  point  in  question.  So  far  from  denying,  it 
seems  to  admit  the  utility  of  the  assumption,  and 
asserts  the  utility  of  some  other  thing,  —  which  other 
thing  he  has  not  explained ;  and,  if  he  had,  it  is  prob 
ably  unattainable  ;  nor  will  its  attainment,  be  it  what 
it  may,  be  prevented  by  the  assumption.  But  before 
we  ask  for  new  powers  on  paper,  let  us  exercise  those 
which  are  actually  vested  in  Congress.  What  will 
new  powers  avail  us,  if  we  suffer  the  Constitution  to 
become  a  dead  letter  I  What  has  dropped  from  the 
gentleman  on  this  point  amounts  to  an  important  con 
cession.  Little  topics  of  objection  sink  to  nothing, 
when  it  is  allowed  that  the  assumption  will  strengthen 
the  government.  Is  the  principle  of  union  too  strong? 
Do  not  all  good  men  desire  to  make  it  perfect? 
What  nation  has  more  to  hope  from  union,  or  to  fear 
from  disunion  ?  Shall  we  make  the  Union  less  strong 
than  the  people  have  intended  to  make  it  by  adopting 
the  Constitution?  And  do  not  all  agree  that  the 
assumption  is  not  a  neutral  measure  ?  If  its  adoption 
will  give  strength  to  the  Union,  its  rejection  will  have 
the  contrary  effect. 

I  have  thought  of  this  government  with  the  fondest 
enthusiasm.  I  have  considered  it  as  tending  to  mend 
the  condition  of  mankind,  and  to  perpetuate  the  bless 
ings  of  liberty.  At  this  late  period  of  the  debate,  it 
is  hardly  possible  for  gentlemen  to  exercise  impar 
tiality.  It  will  be  an  act  of  virtue,  of  magnanimous 
self-command,  to  do  more,  —  to  place  themselves 


56 


for  a  moment  in  the  situation  of  the  advocates  of  the 
assumption,  and  to  see  with  their  eyes.  They  love 
their  country,  and  mean  to  serve  it ;  and  I  am  sure 
they  would  shrink  from  the  spectre  of  its  misery 
which  haunts  us  ;  they  would  not  consent  to  undo 
the  Constitution  in  practice,  to  realize  the  evils  which 
we  only  apprehended  under  the  Confederation,  and 
which  were  prevented  by  the  total  want  of  power  in 
Congress.  With  this  principle,  however,  it  will  be 
found  that  power  enough  is  given  to  create  division, 
and  to  make  it  fatal ;  it  will  beggar  the  government, 
and  bind  it  in  chains. 


IV. 


THE  following  speech  was  delivered  by  Mr.  Ames,  on  the  3d  of 
February,  1792,  in  favor  of  a  bill  sent  from  the  Senate  entitled 
"  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  the  Bank  and  other  Cod- 
fisheries,  and  for  the  Regulation  and  Government  of  the  Fishermen 
employed  therein."  The  bill  provided  for  a  bounty  to  each  vessel 
carrying  on  the  above-named  fisheries,  of  from  one  and  a  half  to 
two  and  a  half  dollars,  according  to  tonnage,  and  passed  the  house 
by  a  vote  of  thirty-eight  yeas  to  twenty  nays,  on  the  9th  of  Feb 
ruary,  1792.  Mr.  Ames,  after  making  some  introductory  obser 
vations,  spoke  as  follows :  — 

IT  is  necessary,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  fix  some  point  in 
which  both  sides  can  agree.  Disputes  cannot  be 
terminated,  —  or,  more  properly,  they  cannot  be  man 
aged  at  all,  —  if  some  first  principles  are  not  conceded. 
The  parties  would  want  weapons  for  the  controversy. 

Law  is  in  some  countries  the  yoke  of  government, 
which  bends  or  breaks  the  necks  of  the  people ;  but, 
thank  Heaven !  in  this  country,  it  is  a  man's  shield, 
his  coat  of  mail,  his  castle  of  safety.  It  is  more  than 
his  defence ;  it  is  his  weapon  to  punish  those  \vho 
invade  his  rights ;  it  is  the  instrument  which  assists, 
it  is  the  price  which  rewards,  his  industry. 

If  I  say  that  fishermen  have  equal  rights  with  other 
men,  every  gentleman  feels  in  his  own  bosom  a  prin 
ciple  of  assent.  If  I  say  that  no  man  shall  pay  a  tax 


58 


on  sending  his  property  out  of  the  country,  the  Con 
stitution  will  affirm  it ;  for  the  Constitution  says,  No 
duty  shall  be  laid  on  exports.  If  I  say,  that  on  ex 
porting  dried  fish,  the  exporter  is  entitled  to  draw 
back  the  duty  paid  on  the  salt,  I  say  no  more  than 
the  law  of  the  land  has  confirmed.  Plain  and  short 
as  these  principles  are,  they  include  the  whole  con 
troversy.  For  I  consider  the  law  allowing  the  draw 
back  as  the  right  of  the  fishery,  the  defects  of  that 
law  as  the  wrong  suffered,  and  the  bill  before  us  as 
the  remedy.  The  defects  of  the  law  are  many  and 
grievous.  Suppose  340,000  quintals  exported:  — 

The  salt  duty  is $42,744 

The  drawback  is  only 34,000 

The  loss  to  the  fishery $8,744 

Whereas  government  pays  $45,900,  at  13^  cents,  includ 
ing  charges,  which  are  3^  cents,  on  a  quintal,  which 
is  beyond  what  the  fishery  receives 11,900 

Being  a  clear  loss  to  the  government  of   .     .     .     .       $3,156 

So  that,  though  the  whole  is  intended  for  the  benefit 
of  the  fishery,  about  one-fourth  of  what  is  paid  is  not 
so  applied ;  there  is  a  heavy  loss  both  to  government 
and  the  fishery.  Even  what  is  paid  on  the  export  is 
nearly  lost  money ;  the  bounty  is  not  paid  till  the 
exportation,  nor  then  till  six  months  have  elapsed ; 
whereas  the  duty  on  salt  is  paid  before  the  fish  is 
taken :  it  is  paid  to  the  exporter,  not  to  the  fisher 
man.  The  bounty  is  so  indirect,  that  the  poor  fish 
erman  loses  sight  of  it.  It  is  paid  to  such  persons,  in 
such  places,  and  at  such  periods,  as  to  disappoint  its 
good  effects  ;  passing  through  so  many  hands,  and 
paying  so  many  profits  to  each,  it  is  almost  absorbed. 


59 


The  encouragement,  too,  is  greatest  in  successful 
years,  when  least  needed ;  and  is  least  in  bad  fishing 
seasons,  when  it  is  most  needed.  It  is  a  very  per 
plexed,  embarrassing  regulation  to  the  officers  of  the 
government,  and  to  the  exporter:  hence  the  great 
charge  ;  and  with  all  this  charge  and  trouble,  it  is 
liable  to  many  frauds.  Four  hundred  miles  of  coast, 
little  towns,  no  officers.  All  these  defects  the  bill 
remedies ;  and,  besides,  gives  the  money  on  condition 
that  certain  regulations  are  submitted  to,  which  are 
worth  almost  as  much  as  the  money. 

The  bill  is  defended  on  three  grounds.  First,  it 
will  promote  the  national  wealth ;  second,  the  national 
safety;  third,  justice  requires  it.  The  last  is  fully 
relied  on. 

To  show  that  the  fishery  will  increase  the  wealth 
of  the.  nation,  it  cannot  be  improper  to  mention  its 
great  value.  The  export  before  the  war  brought  more 
than  a  million  of  dollars  into  this  country ;  proba 
bly  it  is  not  less  at  present,  and  no  small  part  in  gold 
and  silver.  It  is  computed  that  thirty  thousand  per 
sons,  including  four  thousand  seamen,  subsist  by  it. 
Many  say,  very  composedly,  if  it  will  not  maintain 
itself,  let  it  fall.  But  we  should  not  only  lose  the 
annual  million  of  dollars  which  it  brings  us,  —  an 
immense  capital  would  be  lost.  The  fishing  towns 
are  built  on  the  naked  rocks  or  barren  sands  on  the 
side  of  the  sea.  Those  spots,  however,  where  trade 
would  sicken  and  die,  which  husbandry  scorns  to  till, 
and  which  nature  seems  to  have  devoted  to  eternal 
barrenness,  are  selected  by  industry  to  work  miracles 
on.  Houses,  stores,  and  wharves  are  erected,  and  a 
vast  property  created,  all  depending  on  this  business. 


Before  you  think  it  a  light  thing  to  consign  them  to 
ruin,  see  if  you  can  compute  what  they  cost ;  if  they 
outrun  your  figures,  then  confess  it  would  be  bad 
economy,  as  well  as  bad  policy,  to  suffer  rival  nations 
to  ruin  our  fishery.  The  regulations  of  foreign  nations 
tend  to  bring  this  ruin  about.  France  and  England 
equally  endeavor,  in  the  language  of  the  Secretary  of 
State,  to  mount  their  marine  on  the  destruction  of  our 
fishery.  The  fishers  at  Newfoundland  are  allowed 
liberal  bounties  by  the  English  Government ;  and  in 
the  French  West  Indies,  we  meet  bounties  on  their 
fish  and  duties  on  our  own,  and  these  amount  to  the 
price  of  the  fish.  From  the  English  islands  we  are 
quite  shut  out ;  yet  such  is  the  force  of  our  natural 
advantages,  that  we  have  not  yielded  to  these  rivals. 
The  Secretary  of  State  has  made  these  statements  in 
his  Report. 

The  more  fish  we  catch,  the  cheaper ;  the  English 
fish  will  need  a  greater  bounty :  whereas,  if  we  should 
yield,  the  English  would  probably  need  no  bounty  at 
all ;  they  would  have  the  monopoly.  For  example  : 
Suppose  the  English  can  fish  at  two  dollars  the  quin 
tal, —  we  catch  so  much  that  we  sell  at  one  dollar  and 
two-thirds ;  the  loss  to  them  is  one-third  of  a  dollar 
to  each  quintal.  They  must  have  that  sum  as  a  bounty. 
Whereas,  if  we  increase  our  fishery,  a  greater  and 
greater  bounty  is  needed  by  foreign  nations.  The 
contest  so  painfully  sustained  by  them  must  be  yielded 
at  last,  and  we  shall  enjoy  alone  an  immense  fund  of 
wealth  to  the  nation  which  nature  has  made  ours; 
and,  though  foreigners  disturb  the  possession,  we  shall 
finally  enjoy  it  peaceably  and  exclusively.  If  the 
lands  of  Kentucky  are  invaded,  you  drive  off  the  in- 


61 


vader ;  and  so  you  ought.  Why  not  protect  this 
property  as  well  ]  These  opinions  are  supported  by 
no  common  authority.  The  State  of  Massachusetts 
having  represented  the  discouragements  of  the  fishery, 
the  subject  has  received  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary 
of  State  ;  he  confirms  the  facts  stated  in  the  petition  ; 
he  says  it  is  too  poor  a  business  to  pay  anything  to 
government. 

Yet.  instead  of  asking  bounties,  or  a  remission  of  the 
duties  on  the  articles  consumed,  we  ask  nothing  but 
to  give  us  our  own  money  back,  which  you  received 
under  an  engagement  to  pay  it  back  in  case  the  arti 
cle  should  be  exported.  If  nothing  was  in  view, 
therefore,  but  to  promote  national  wealth,  it  seems 
plain  that  this  branch  ought  to  be  protected  and  pre 
served  ;  because,  under  all  the  discouragement  it 
suffers,  it  increases,  and  every  year  more  and  more 
enriches  the  country,  and  promises  to  become  an 
inexhaustible  fund  of  wealth. 

Another  view  has  been  taken  of  the  subject,  which 
is  drawn  from  the  naval  protection  afforded  in  time 
of  war  by  a  fishery.  Our  coasting  and  foreign  trade 
is  increasing  rapidly ;  but  the  richer  our  trade  be 
comes,  the  better  prize  to  the  enemy.  So  far  from 
protecting  us,  it  would  be  the  very  thing  that  would 
tempt  him  to  go  to  war  with  us.  As  the  rice  and 
tobacco  planters  cheerfully  pay  for  armies,  and  turn 
out  in  the  militia  to  protect  their  property  on  shore, 
they  cannot  be  so  much  deceived  as  to  wish  to  have 
it  left  unprotected  \vhen  it  is  afloat ;  especially  when 
it  is  known  that  this  protection,  though  more  effect 
ual  than,  the  whole  revenue  expended  on  a  navy  could 
procure,  will  not  cost  a  farthing ;  on  the  contrary,  it 


62 


will  enrich  while  it  protects  the  nation.  The  coasters 
and  other  seamen,  in  the  event  of  a  war,  would  be 
doubly  in  demand,  and  could  neither  protect  them 
selves  nor  annoy  the  enemy  to  any  considerable  de 
gree  ;  but  the  fishermen,  thrown  out  of  business  by  a 
war,  would  be  instantly  in  action.  They  would,  as 
they  formerly  did,  embark  in  privateers ;  having  noth 
ing  to  lose  and  everything  to  hope,  they  would  not  dis 
honor  their  former  fame.  Their  mode  of  life  makes 
them  expert  and  hardy  seamen.  Nothing  can  be 
more  adventurous.  They  cast  anchor  on  the  banks, 
three  hundred  leagues  from  land,  and,  with  a  great 
length  of  cable,  ride  out  the  storms  of  winter.  If  the 
gale  proves  too  strong,  they  often  sink  at  their  anchors, 
and  are  food  for  fish  which  they  came  to  take.  For 
ever  wet,  the  sea  almost  becomes  their  element.  Cold 
and  labor,  in  that  region  of  frost,  brace  their  bodies, 
and  they  become  as  hardy  as  the  bears  on  the  islands 
of  ice  ;  their  skill  and  spirit  are  not  inferior ;  familiar 
with  danger,  they  despise  it.  If  I  were  to  recite  their 
exploits,  the  theme  would  find  every  American  heart 
already  glowing  with  the  recollection  of  them ;  it 
would  kindle  more  enthusiasm  than  the  subject  has 
need  of.  My  view  is  only  to  appeal,  to  evince  the 
importance  of  the  fishery  as  a  means  of  naval  protec 
tion.  It  is  proper  to  pass  over  Bunker's  Hill,  though 
memorable  by  the  valor  of  a  regiment  of  fishermen ; 
nor  is  it  necessary  to  mention,  further,  that  five  hun 
dred  fishermen  fought  at  Trenton. 

It  is  known  that  the  privateers  manned  by  fisher 
men,  in  want  of  everything,  not  excepting  arms  which 
they  depended  on  taking  from  their  enemies,  brought 
into  port  warlike  stores  of  every  kind,  as  well  as  every 


63 


kind  of  merchandise  sufficient  for  the  army  and  the 
country  ;  the  war  could  not  have  been  carried  on  with 
out  them.  Among  other  exploits  almost  beyond  belief, 
one  instance  is  worth  relating :  these  people,  in  a  pri 
vateer  of  sixteen  guns  and  one  hundred  and  fifty 
men,  in  one  cruise  took  more  than  twenty  ships, 
with  upward  of  two  hundred  guns  and  nearly  four 
hundred  men.  The  privateers  from  a  single  district 
of  Massachusetts,  where  the  fishery  is  chiefly  seated, 
took  more  than  two  thousand  vessels,  being  one-third 
of  the  British  merchant  vessels,  and  brought  in  near 
one  thousand  two  hundred.  An  hundred  sail  of  pri 
vateers,  manned  by  fishermen,  would  scour  every  sea 
in  case  of  war. 

Some  gentlemen  think  of  a  navy  ;  but  what  navy 
could  do  more  I  What  nation  would  provoke  a  peo 
ple  so  capable  of  injuring  them  1  Could  fifty  ships  of 
the  line  afford  more  security  1  and  yet  this  resource 
of  the  fishery,  always  ready,  always  sufficient,  will 
cost  nothing.  The  superior  naval  force  of  our  foes 
should  not  discourage  us  ;  our  privateers  would  issue 
like  so  many  sword-fish  to  attack  the  whale.  I  leave 
these  observations  to  their  weight,  and  forbear  to  press 
them  further ;  strong  as  I  think  them,  I  rest  my  sup 
port  of  the  bill  on  another  ground.  I  will  only  ask 
whether  you  will  oppress,  if  you  will  not  encourage 
them ;  whether,  if  you  will  not  give  them  the  money 
of  the  public,  you  will  partially  seize  their  own] 
This  is  all  they  ask.  If  your  policy  demands  for  them 
so  much,  will  your  justice  deny  them  so  little  ? 

I  have  repeatedly  asserted  that  the  bill  will  not  cost 
the  public  a  farthing  ;  you  only  take  the  money  which 
the  fishery  brings  into  the  treasury,  for  the  salt  duty, 


64 


and  pay  the  same  or  a  less  sum  back  in  bounties, 
instead  of  a  drawback  on  the  exportation  of  fish. 
Here  I  rest  my  argument.  Before  I  adduce  my 
proofs,  I  cannot  forbear  to  lay  open  the  state  of 
my  mind.  I  rely  on  the  truth  of  the  facts  I  propose 
to  offer.  I  rely  on  the  proof  of  them  being  as  near 
demonstration  as  the  nature  of  the  case  will  admit. 
I  make  no  doubt  of  the  good  sense  and  good  inten 
tions  of  the  gentlemen  whom  I  wish  to  convince  ;  and 
yet,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  I  am  far  from  being  sanguine  in 
the  hope  of  gaining  a  single  vote  for  the  bill.  I  will 
explain  my  meaning,  and  then  I  think  no  gentleman 
will  take  exception  at  it.  This  debate  depends  on 
calculation.  In  print  or  writing  or  private  conver 
sation,  figures  have  the  advantage  of  every  other  mode 
of  investigation ;  the  mind  is  fixed  to  a  point,  and 
made  to  see  it  clearly.  But  in  public  debate  it  is 
otherwise.  Figures  not  only  disgust  attention,  but,  as 
the  mind  cannot  carry  them  along,  they  confound  it ; 
they  make  a  plain  thing  look  mysterious,  and  bring 
it  into  suspicion.  When  I  ask  of  the  Committee  a 
hearing,  and  it  is  granted,  I  get  nothing ;  I  want  a 
close  attention ;  and  I  have  to  beg,  and  earnestly  too, 
that  gentlemen  will  not  trust  their  first  opinions  and 
vote  against  the  bill,  without  condescending  to  receive 
and  to  weigh  the  facts  and  calculations  of  its  advo 
cates. 

The  first  question  is,  How  much  does  the  govern 
ment  receive  by  the  duty  on  the  salt  used  in  curing 
the  fish  which  is  exported?  The  quantity  of  fish 
must  be  known.  Several  ways  of  information  are  to 
be  explored.  The  Secretary  of  State  supposes  the 
fish  of  1790  to  be  354,276  quintals.  A  Treasury 


65 


return  of  fish  exported  from  Aug.  20,  1789,  to  Sept. 
30,  1790,  which  is  thirteen  and  one-third  months,  is 
378,721  quintals, — for  a  year,  equal  to  340,849  quin 
tals. 

Foreign-dried  fish  imported  from  Aug.  15,  1789, 
to  Aug.  1790,  3,701  quintals;  five  per  cent  drawback 
thereon  is  only  three  hundred  and  ten  dollars,  at  one 
dollar  and  sixty-six  cents  per  quintal.  Mr.  Giles 
is  mistaken  in  supposing  that  foreign  fish  deducts 
$16,000  from  our  estimate.  Return  of  fish  in  seven 
months  from  May  30  to  December,  1790,  exported, 
all  fish  of  the  United  States,  197,278  quintals  ;  which, 
for  a  year,  is  338,184  quintals.  The  medium  may 
be  fairly  taken  for  the  time  past  at  340,000  quintals 
a  year. 

Six  gentlemen  of  Marblehead  certify  that  5,043 
hogsheads,  or  40,344  bushels  of  salt,  were  used  on 
38,497|  quintals ;  which,  for  340,000  quintals,  gives 
356,200  bushels.  The  duty,  at  twelve  cents,  is 
$42,744,  which  government  receives.  But  the  charge 
to  the  United  States  is, — 

At  thirteen  and  a  half  cents  per  quintal $45,900 

Whereof  the  fishery  receives  ten  cents   on  each  quintal 

exported     .  * 34,000 

Charges  as  the  law  stands $11,900 

Further,  this  is  but  an  estimate  made  up  from  what 
the  last  year  proved.  The  next  may  be  very  differ 
ent,  and  probably  it  will  be.  If  more  money  should 
be  demanded  than  $44,000,  we  must  not  be  accused 
of  misleading  Congress.  But  in  that  case  an  increase 
would  be  made  by  law  ;  for  the  more  fish  is  exported, 
the  more  thirteen  and  a  half  cents  must  be  paid ;  so 

9 


66 


that  the  bill  creates  no  burden  in  that  way.  But  the 
increase  of  the  export  of  fish  will  probably  operate  in 
favor  of  government ;  for  it  is  known  that  the  econ 
omy,  skill,  and  activity  of  the  fishery  are  making  prog 
ress.  Its  success  has  progressed.  The  mo're  fish  to 
a  vessel,  the  cheaper  the  allowance  on  the  tonnage. 
Therefore  the  tonnage  of  vessels  will  not  increase  in 
a  ratio  with  the  increase  of  the  fish. 

The  very  objections  prove  this ;  for  they  deem 
the  encouragement  too  great.  But  any  encourage 
ment  must  have  the  effect. 

The  difference  of  the  agreements  for  distributing 
the  fish  according  to  the  present  practice,  or  by  this 
bill,  makes  a  great  one  in  the  quantity  taken.  The 
bill  reforms  the  practice  in  this  point.  Marblehead 
vessels  take  less  than  those  from  Beverly.  The 
former  throw  the  fish  into  a  common  stock,  which  is 
afterwards  divided  upon  a  plan  very  unfriendly  to 
exertion.  A  man  works  for  the  whole,  —  perhaps 
twelve  hours,  —  and  they  may  take  about  eight  hun 
dred  quintals  to  a  vessel.  But  in  Beverly  the  exer 
tion  is  as  great  as  can  be  made,  —  eighteen  hours  a 
day,  —  because  each  man  has  what  he  catches ;  and 
they  catch  eleven  hundred  quintals. 

Marblehead  seamen  sailing  from  other  towns,  and 
dividing  as  last  mentioned,  which  the  bill  establishes, 
seldom  fail  to  catch  two  or  three  hundred  quintals 
more  than  vessels  and  men  from  Marblehead  on  the 
first  plan.  Accordingly,  I  assert,  on  good  authority, 
that  the  increase  in  Marblehead  only  may  be  com 
puted  at  fifteen  thousand  quintals,  merely  in  conse 
quence  of  the  reform  by  the  bill.  The  best-informed 
persons  whom  I  have  consulted  entertain  no  doubt 


67 


that  the  export,  in  case  the  bill  should  pass,  would  not 
be  less  than  four  hundred  thousand  quintals,  probably 
more  ;  but,  at  four  hundred  thousand  quintals,  it  would 
add  seven  thousand  two  hundred  dollars  more  to  the 
salt  duty,  —  a  sum  more  than  equal  to  any  estimate  of 
the  actual  tonnage  or  any  probable  increase  of  it. 

$42,744 
7,200 

Salt  duty  on  400,000  quintals $49,944 

Other  facts  confirm  the  theory  that  skill  and  exer 
tion  are  increasing  in  this  business. 

In  1775,  for  25,000  tons  and  4,405  seamen,  the 
fish  sold  amounted  to  $1,071,000.  In  1790,  three- 
fourths  of  the  seamen  and  three-fourths  of  the  ton 
nage  took  as  much  fish.  It  is  owing  to  this  that  our 
fishery  stood  the  competition  with  foreign  nations. 

Finally,  the  average  in  future  may  be  relied  on  not 
to  be  less  than  350,000  quintals. 

Salt  duty  on  which $43,944 

Bounties 44,000 

Wanted .     .  $56 

The  calculation  first  made  will  answer  the  purpose. 

340,000  quintals  pay  salt  duty $42,744 

Tonnage  bounty 44,000 

Wanted $1,256 

This  is  the  mighty  defect.  Observe,  the  authentic 
return  of  the  export  of  fish  may  be,  and  we  can 
almost  prove  it  to  be,  below  the  future  export : 
whereas,  to  banish  all  doubt,  we  go  to  the  top  of  the 
scale  for  the  tonnage  ;  we  take  what  we  know  to  be 
the  utmost.  This  we  might  have  represented  more 


68 


favorably,  if  we  had  chosen  to  conceal  anything.  But 
even  this  will  answer  our  purpose. 

For  two  hundred  tons  are  wanting  in  the  estimate 
of  the  bounties,  being  nineteen  thousand  eight  hun 
dred,  not  twenty  thousand,  which  will  take  off  one- 
third  of  the  deficient  sum. 

The  tonnage  over  sixty- eight,  which  receives  nothing, 
is  not  mentioned :  and  it  is  probably  not  less  than 
another  third. 

The  boats  under  five  tons,  though  trifling,  are  to  be 
noticed  ;  they  receive  nothing. 

But,  above  all,  the  chances  of  non-compliance  with 
the  regulations  are  in  favor  of  the  remainder  of  the 
twelve  hundred  and  fifty-six  dollars  being  stopped. 
Boats  may  not  get  twelve  quintals  to  the  ton,  or  ves 
sels  may  have  their  voyages  broken  up,  or  not  stay 
four  months  on  the  fishing  ground;  and  in  either  case 
they  would  receive  nothing.  Take  all  these  together, 
is  it  not  to  be  doubted  that  twelve  hundred  and  fifty- 
six  dollars  will  remain  of  the  forty-four  thousand  in 
the  Treasury  ] 

But  these  are  trifles  which  I  cannot  believe  gentle 
men  are  anxious  about. 

For  the  event  cannot  be  reduced  to  a  certainty. 
What  quantity  of  fish  will  be  exported,  no  man  can 
tell  now.  But  as  government  may  receive  more  than 
it  will  pay,  the  chance  may  turn  the  other  way,  and  it 
may  have  to  pay  a  few  hundred  dollars  more  than  it 
will  have  received.  We  have  seen  that  the  chance  is 
most  in  favor  of  government.  But  one  chance  must 
balance  the  other.  This  answer  is  sincerely  relied  on 
as  a  good  one. 

I  barely  mention  that  the  wear  of  cordage,  cables, 


69 


sails,  and  anchors  is  very  great.  These  articles,  on 
being  imported,  pay  duties.  So  that  it  is  probable 
that  the  extra  duty  paid  by  the  fishery  on  their  extra 
consumption  will  overbalance  any  little  sums  sup 
posed  to  exceed  in  the  bounty. 

It  has  been  asked,  as  if  some  cunning  were  de 
tected,  why,  if  the  money  received  in  the  treasury  to 
pay  the  drawbacks  is  equal  to  the  proposed  bounties, 
a  further  appropriation  should  be  made.  This  cun 
ning  question  admits  of  several  very  simple  answers. 

1st.  The  bill  being  for  seven  years,  the  average 
product  is  the  proper  sum  to  be  calculated.  But  the 
first  three  years  may  fall  short  of  the  bounties,  say 
two  thousand  dollars  a  year,  which  is  six  thousand 
dollars.  The  last  four  may  exceed  two  thousand  dol 
lars,  say  eight  thousand  dollars. 

Shall  a  poor  fisherman  wait  for  the  whole,  or,  if  he 
takes  his  part  according  to  the  money  in  the  treasury, 
for  a  twenty-fourth  part  of  the  bounty  on  his  vessel, 
from  1792  to  1795] 

2d.  This  delay  would  happen  after  a  bad  year,  the 
very  time  when  he  would  most  need  prompt  pay. 

3d.  But  fish  taken  this  year  will  not  be  exported 
till  December  next.  Therefore  the  money  will  not  be 
stopped  by  the  drawback,  as  the  law  stands,  till  six 
months  after. 

A  substitute  has  been  proposed  for  the  clause  to 
appropriate  the  drawback  only.  This  is  absolutely 
improper.  For  the  ten  cents  allowed  as  drawback  is 
but  a  part  of  the  duty  paid  on  salt.  It  is  not  easy  to 
see  any  reason  why  a  part  stopped  at  the  treasury 
should  be  equal  to  the  whole  paid  there  long  before. 
The  drawback  falls  near  nine  thousand  dollars  short 


70 


of  the  salt  duty  received  by  government  The  ex 
pense  of  the  drawback  would  be  very  heavy  and  use 
less. 

Nor  may  gentlemen  apprehend  that  government, 
by  paying  next  December,  will  advance  money  to  the 
fishery.  The  salt  duty  will  have  been  paid,  and  the 
government  will  have  the  use  of  the  money,  many 
months  before  the  fishermen  will  have  the  right  to 
call  for  the  bounties. 

It  is  left  to  the  candor  of  the  gentlemen  who  have 
urged  this  objection,  whether  a  better  or  fairer  answer 
is  desired. 

After  having  laboriously  gone  through  the  estimate 
of  the  probable  export  of  fish,  it  will  not  be  necessary 
to  be  equally  minute  as  to  the  number  or  kind  of  ves 
sels  which  are  to  receive  the  bounty.  The  estimate 
we  believe  to  be  very  high.  That  it  is  high  enough 
we  suppose  very  probable,  from  the  estimate  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  which  is  only  nineteen  thousand 
one  hundred  and  eighty-five  tons. 

This  mode  of  paying  the  bounty  on  the  tonnage  is 
very  simple  and  safe.  The  measurement  is  already 
made,  and  costs  nothing  ;  and,  as  it  was  made  to  pay  a 
duty  on  tonnage,  we  are  very  sure  that  government 
will  not  be  cheated  by  an  over-measure.  The  mode 
of  paying  the  drawback,  as  the  law  now  stands,  is  ex 
pensive,  perplexed,  and  embarrassing,  liable  to  frauds 
and  delays. 

This  intricate  and  disgusting  detail  of  calculations 
was  necessary  to  satisfy  the  Committee  that  each  of 
the  three  grounds  of  defence  on  which  the  bill  rests 
is  tenable. 

Instead  of  impoverishing  the  nation  by  scattering 


71 


the  treasures  of  the  whole  to  benefit  a  part,  it  appears 
that  we  are  preserving  a  mine  of  treasure.  In  point 
of  naval  protection,  we  can  scarcely  estimate  the  fisV 
ery  too  highly.  It  is  always  ready,  always  equal  to 
the  object ;  it  is  almost  the  only  sufficient  source  of 
protection  by  sea.  Our  navigation  is  certainly  a 
precious  interest  of  the  country.  But  no  part  of  our 
navigation  can  vie  with  the  fishery  in  respect  to  the 
protection  it  affords.  There  is  no  point  which  regards 
our  national  wealth  or  national  safety,  in  respect  to 
which  it  seems  practicable  to  do  so  much  with  so 
little. 

We  rely  on  the  evidence  before  you  that  the  public 
will  not  sustain  the  charge  of  a  dollar.  Those  ought 
not  to  doubt  the  evidence  who  cannot  invalidate  it. 
If,  then,  the  fishermen  ask  you  to  restore  only  their 
own  money,  will  you  deny  them]  Will  you  return 
to  every  other  person  exporting  dutied  goods  the 
money  he  has  paid,  and  will  you  refuse  the  poor 
fisherman  1 

If  there  must  be  an  instance  of  the  kind,  will  you 
single  out  for  this  oppressive  partiality  that  branch 
which  is  described  by  the  Secretary  of  State  as  too 
poor  even  to  bear  its  own  part  of  the  common  burden  ? 
—  that  branch  which,  nevertheless,  has  borne  the  neg 
lect  of  our  nation  and  the  persecution  of  foreign 
prohibitions  and  duties  ;  a  branch  which,  though  we 
have  received  much  and  expect  more,  both  of  money 
and  services,  urges  no  claim  but  such  as  common 
justice  has  sanctioned. 


V. 


ON  the  3d  of  January,  1794,  Mr.  Madison,  a  member  from 
Virginia,  proposed  to  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  a  series  of  resolutions,  to  impose  higher  duties  and  lay 
greater  restrictions  on  the  manufactures,  products,  and  ships,  and 
on  particular  branches  of  trade,  of  a  certain  nation,  or  of  nations 
therein  described.  In  explanation  of  his  motives  and  views,  he 
spoke  of  the  security  and  extension  of  our  commerce,  as  a  prin 
cipal  object  for  which  the  federal  government  was  formed.  He 
urged  the  tendency  of  his  resolutions  to  secure  to  us  an  equitable 
share  of  the  carrying  trade  ;  that  they  would  enable  other  nations 
to  enter  into  a  competition  with  England  for  supplying  us  with 
manufactures  ;  and  in  this  way  he  insisted  that  our  country  could 
make  her  enemies  feel  the  extent  of  her  power,  by  depriving  those 
who  manufactured  for  us  of  their  bread.  He  adverted  to  the 
measures  enforced  by  a  certain  nation,  contrary  to  our  maritime 
rights  ;  and  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  extra  impositions  proposed, 
he  recommended  a  reimbursement  to  our  citizens  of  their  losses 
arising  from  those  measures.  He  maintained  that  if  the  nation 
cannot  protect  the  rights  of  its  citizens,  it  ought  to  repay  the 
damage  ;  and  that  we  are  bound  to  obtain  reparation  for  the  in 
justice  of  foreign  nations  to  our  citizens,  or  to  compensate  them 
ourselves. 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr  Ames  thought  that  "  whatever  specious 
show  of  advantage  might  be  given  to  the  policy  proposed  in  the 
resolutions,  it  would  prove  an  aggravation  and  not  a  remedy  of 
any  supposed  or  real  evils  in  our  commercial  system."  He  con- 


73 


sidered  the  zeal  for  unlimited  freedom  of  commerce  as  affected 
and  insincere.  He  thought  it  ridiculous  in  this  country  to  pre 
tend,  at  this  time,  to  change  the  general  policy  of  nations  ;  and  to 
begin  the  abolition  of  restrictions  by  enacting  non-importation 
laws.  Shutting  up  the  best  markets  for  exports,  and  confining 
ourselves  to  the  worst,  for  our  imports,  was  peculiarly  inconsistent 
and  absurd  in  those  who  profess  to  aim  at  the  benefit  of  trade. 
To  him  it  appeared  that,  under  the  pretence  of  making  trade 
better,  it  was  to  be  annihilated ;  that  it  might  serve  France,  but 
would  certainly  injure  us.  He  saw  too  plainly  that  our  trade  was 
to  wage  war  for  our  politics,  and  to  be  used  as  the  instrument 
of  gratifying  political  resentments. 

The  way  had  been  prepared  for  these  resolutions  by  a  report 
from  Mr.  Jefferson,  as  Secretary  of  State,  on  the  same  subject, 
which  had  been  long  labored  to  give  it  the  aspect  which  it  bore. 
Mr.  Ames  saw,  or  thought  he  saw,  in  these  measures  the  medi 
tated  overthrow  of  the  commercial  prosperity  of  the  United  States, 
and  especially  of  that  part  of  them  whose  interests  were  par 
ticularly  confided  to  his  care.  With  these  impressions,  he  made 
the  following  speech  on  the  27th  of  the  same'mouth,  1794.  [Life 
and  Works  of  Fisher  Ames,  1809  and  1854.] 

THE  question  lies  within  this  compass,  Is  there 
any  measure  proper  to  be  adopted  by  Congress  which 
will  have  the  effect  to  put  our  trade  and  navigation 
on  a  better  footing  ?  If  there  is,  it  is  our  undoubted 
right  to  adopt  it ;  if  by  right  is  understood  the  power 
of  self-government,  which  every  independent  nation 
possesses,  and  our  own  as  completely  as  any  other,  it  is 
our  duty  also,  for  we  are  the  depositaries  and  the  guar 
dians  of  the  interests  of  our  constituents,  which,  on 
every  consideration,  ought  to  be  dear  to  us.  I  make 
no  doubt  they  are  so,  and  that  there  is  a  disposition 
sufficiently  ardent  existing  in  this  body  to  co-operate 
in  any  measures  for  the  advancement  of  the  common 

10 


74 


good.  Indeed,  so  far  as  I  can  judge  from  any  knowl 
edge  I  have  of  human  nature,  or  of  the  prevailing 
spirit  of  public  transactions,  that  sort  of  patriotism, 
which  makes  us  wish  the  general  prosperity,  when 
our  private  interest  does  not  happen  to  stand  in  the 
way,  is  no  uncommon  sentiment.  In  truth,  it  is 
very  like  self-love,  and  not  much  less  prevalent. 
There  is  little  occasion  to  excite  and  inflame  it.  It 
is,  like  self-love,  more  apt  to  want  intelligence  than 
zeal.  The  danger  is  always  that  it  will  rush  blindly 
into  embarrassments,  which  a  prudent  spirit  of  inquiry 
might  have  prevented,  but  from  which  it  will  scarcely 
find  means  to  extricate  us.  While  therefore  the 
right,  the  duty,  and  the  inclination  to  advance  the 
trade  and  navigation  of  the  United  States,  are  ac 
knowledged  and  felt  by  us  all,  the  choice  of  the  proper 
means  to  that  end  is  a  matter  requiring  the  most 
circumspect  inquiry,  and  the  most  dispassionate  judg 
ment. 

After  a  debate  has  continued  a  long  time,  the  sub 
ject  very  frequently  becomes  tiresome  before  it  is 
exhausted.  Arguments,  however  solid,  urged  by 
different  speakers,  can  scarcely  fail  to  render  the 
discussion  both  complex  and  diffusive.  Without 
pretending  to  give  to  my  arguments  any  other  merit, 
I  shall  aim  at  simplicity. 

We  hear  it  declared  that  the  design  of  the  resolu 
tions  is  to  place  our  trade  and  navigation  on  a  better 
footing.  By  better  footing,  we  are  to  understand  a 
more  profitable  one.  Profit  is  a  plain  word  that 
cannot  be  misunderstood. 

We  have,  to  speak  in  round  numbers,  twenty  million 
dollars  of  exports  annually.  To  have  the  trade  of  ex- 


75 


ports  on  a  good  footing,  means  nothing  more  than  to  sell 
them  dear ;  and  consequently  the  trade  of  import  on 
a  good  footing  is  to  buy  cheap.  To  put  them  both 
on  a  better  footing  is  to  sell  dearer  and  to  buy  cheaper 
than  we  do  at  present.  If  the  effect  of  the  resolu 
tions  will  be  to  cause  our  exports  to  be  sold  cheaper, 
and  our  imports  to  be  bought  dearer,  our  trade  will 
suffer  an  injury. 

It  is  hard  to  compute  how  great  the  injury  would 
prove  ;  for  the  first  loss  of  value  in  the  buying  dear 
and  selling  cheap  is  only  the  symptom  and  beginning 
of  the  evil,  but  by  no  means  the  measure  of  it  ;  it 
will  withdraw  a  great  part  of  the  nourishment  that 
now  supplies  the  wonderful  growth  of  our  industry 
and  opulence.  The  difference  may  not  amount  to  a 
great  proportion  of  the  price  of  the  articles,  but  it 
may  reach  the  greater  part  of  the  profit  of  the  pro 
ducer  ;  it  may  have  effects  in  this  way  which  will  be 
of  the  worst  kind,  by  discouraging  the  products  of 
our  land  and  industry.  It  is  to  this  test  I  pro 
pose  to  bring  the  resolutions  on  the  table  ;  and  if  it 
shall  clearly  appear  that  they  tend  to  cause  our  ex 
ports  to  be  sold  cheaper  and  our  imports  to  be  bought 
dearer,  they  cannot  escape  condemnation.  Whatever 
specious  show  of  advantage  may  be  given  them,  they 
deserve  to  be  called  aggravations  of  any  real  or  sup 
posed  evils  in  our  commercial  system,  and  not 
remedies. 

I  have  framed  this  statement  of  the  question  so  as 
to  comprehend  the  whole  subject  of  debate,  and,  at 
the  same  time,  I  confess  it  was  my  design  to  exclude 
from  consideration  a  number  of  topics  which  appear 
to  me  totally  irrelative  to  it. 


76 


The  best  answer  to  many  assertions  we  have  heard 
is  to  admit  them  without  proof.  We  are  exhorted  to 
assert  our  natural  rights ;  to  put  trade  on  a  respect 
able  footing ;  to  dictate  terms  of  trade  to  other 
nations  ;  to  engage  in  a  contest  of  self-denial ;  and 
by  that,  and  by  shifting  our  commerce  from  one 
country  to  another,  to  make  our  enemies  feel  the  ex 
tent  of  our  power.  This  language,  as  it  respects  the 
proper  subject  of  discussion,  means  nothing,  or  what 
is  worse.  If  our  trade  is  already  on  a  profitable  foot 
ing,  it  is  on  a  respectable  one.  Unless  war  be  our 
object,  it  is  useless  to  inquire  what  are  the  dispositions 
of  any  government,  with  whose  subjects  our  mer 
chants  deal  to  the  best  advantage.  While  they  will 
smoke  our  tobacco  and  eat  our  provisions,  it  is  very 
immaterial,  both  to  the  consumer  and  the  producer, 
what  are  the  politics  of  the  two  countries,  excepting 
so  far  as  their  quarrels  may  disturb  the  benefits  of 
their  mutual  intercourse. 

So  far,  therefore,  as  commerce  is  concerned,  the  in 
quiry  is,  Have  we  a  good  market  ? 

The  good  or  bad  state  of  our  adual  market  is  the 
question.  The  actual  market  is  everywhere  more  or 
less  a  restricted  one,  and  the  natural  order  of  things 
is  displaced  by  the  artificial.  Most  nations,  for 
reasons  of  which  they  alone  are  the  rightful  judges, 
have  regulated  and  restricted  their  intercourse,  ac 
cording  to  their  views  of  safety  and  profit.  We  claim 
for  ourselves  the  same  right,  as  the  acts  in  our  statute- 
book  and  the  resolutions  on  the  table  evince,  without 
holding  ourselves  accountable  to  any  other  nation 
whatever.  The  right,  which  we  properly  claim,  and 
which  we  properly  exercise,  when  we  do  it  prudently 


77 


and  usefully  for  our  nation,  is  as  well  established  and 
has  been  longer  in  use  in  the  countries  of  which  we 
complain,  than  in  our  own.  If  their  right  is  as  good 
as  that  of  Congress,  to  regulate  and  restrict,  why  do 
we  talk  of  a  strenuous  exertion  of  our  force,  and  by 
dictating  terms  to  nations,  who  are  fancied  to  be  phys 
ically  dependent  on  America,  to  change  the  policy  of 
nations  I  It  may  be  very  true  that  their  policy  is  very 
wise  and  good  for  themselves,  but  not  as  favorable  for 
us  as  we  could  make  it,  if  we  could  legislate  for  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic. 

The  extravagant  despotism  of  this  language  accords 
very  ill  with  our  power  to  give  it  effect,  or  with  the 
affectation  of  zeal  for  an  unlimited  freedom  of  com 
merce.  Such  a  state  of  absolute  freedom  of  commerce 
never  did  exist,  and  it  is  very  much  to  be  doubted 
whether  it  ever  will.  Were  I  invested  with  the  trust 
to  legislate  for  mankind,  it  is  very  probable  the  first 
act  of  my  authority  would  be  to  throw  all  the  restric 
tive  and  prohibitory  laws  of  trade  into  the  fire  ;  the 
resolutions  on  the  table  would  not  be  spared.  But  if 
I  were  to  do  so,  it  is  probable  I  should  have  a  quarrel 
on  my  hands  Vith  every  civilized  nation.  The  Dutch 
would  claim  the  monopoly  of  the  spice  trade,  for 
which  their  ancestors  passed  their  whole  lives  in  war 
fare.  The  Spaniards  and  Portuguese  would  be  no 
less  obstinate.  If  we  calculate  what  colony  monopo 
lies  have  cost  in  wealth,  in  suffering,  and  in  crimes, 
we  shall  say  they  were  dearly  purchased.  The  Eng 
lish  would  plead  for  their  navigation  act,  not  as  a 
source  of  gain,  but  as  an  essential  means  of  securing 
their  independence.  So  many  interests  would  be  dis 
turbed,  and  so  many  lost,  by  a  violent  change  from 


78 


the  existing  to  an  unknown  order  of  things  ;  and  the 
mutual  relations  of  nations,  in  respect  to  their  power 
and  wealth,  would  suffer  such  a  shock,  that  the  idea 
must  be  allowed  to  be  perfectly  Utopian  and  wild. 
But  for  this  country  to  form  the  project  of  changing 
the  policy  of  nations,  and  to  begin  the  abolition  of 
restrictions  by  restrictions  of  its  own,  is  equally  ridic 
ulous  and  inconsistent. 

Let  every  nation  that  is  really  disposed  to  extend 
the  liberty  of  commerce  beware  of  rash  and  hasty 
schemes  of  prohibition.  In  the  affairs  of  trade,  as  in 
most  others,  we  make  too  many  laws.  We  follow 
experience  too  little,  and  the  visions  of  theorists  a 
great  deal  too  much.  Instead  of  listening  to  dis 
courses  on  what  the  market  ought  to  be,  and  what  the 
schemes,  which  always  promise  much  on  paper,  pre 
tend  to  make  it,  let  us  see  what  is  the  actual  market 
for  our  exports  and  imports.  This  will  bring  vague 
assertions  and  sanguine  opinions  to  the  test  of  ex 
perience.  That  rage  for  theory  and  system,  which 
would  entangle  even  practical  truth  in  the  web  of  the 
brain,  is  the  poison  of  public  discussion.  One  fact  is 
better  than  two  systems. 

The  terms  on  which  our  exports  are  received  in  the 
British  market  have  been  accurately  examined  by  a 
gentleman  from  South  Carolina  (Mr.  Win.  Smith). 
Before  his  statement  of  facts  was  made  to  the  Com 
mittee,  it  was  urged,  and  with  no  little  warmth,  that 
the  system  of  England  indicated  her  inveteracy 
towards  this  country,  while  that  of  France,  spring 
ing  from  disinterested  affection,  constituted  a  claim 
for  gratitude  and  self-denying  measures  of  retribution. 

Since  that  statement,  however,  that  romantic  style, 


79 


which  is  so  ill  adapted  to  the  subject,  has  been 
changed.  We  hear  it  insinuated  that  the  comparison 
of  the  footing  of  our  exports  in  the  markets  of  France 
and  England  is  of  no  importance  ;  that  it  is  chiefly  our 
object  to  see  how  we  may  assist  and  extend  our  com 
merce.  This  evasion  of  the  force  of  the  statement,  or 
rather  this  indirect  admission  of  its  authority,  estab 
lishes  it.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  it  has  been 
shaken  during  the  debate. 

It  has  been  made  to  appear,  beyond  contradiction, 
that  the  British  market  for  our  export?,  taken  in  the 
aggregate,  is  a  good  one  ;  that  it  is  better  than  the 
French,  and  better  than  any  we  have,  and  for  many 
of  our  products  the  only  one. 

The  whole  amount  of  our  exports  to  the  British 
dominions,  in  the  year  ending  the  30th  September, 
1790,  was  nine  millions  two  hundred  and  forty-six 
thousand  six  hundred  and  six  dollars. 

But  it  will  be  more  simple  and  satisfactory  to  con 
fine  the  inquiry  to  the  articles  following. 

Bread-stuff,  tobacco,  rice,  wood,  the  produce  of  the 
fisheries,  fish-oil,  pot  and  pearl  ash,  salted  meats, 
indigo,  live  animals,  flax-seed,  naval  stores,  and  iron. 

The  amount  of  the  before-mentioned  articles,  ex 
ported  in  that  same  year  to  the  British  dominions,  was 
eight  millions  four  hundred  and  fifty-seven  thousand 
one  hundred  and  seventy-three  dollars. 

We  have  heard  so  much  of  restriction,  of  inimical 
and  jealous  prohibitions  to  cramp  our  trade,  it  is  nat 
ural  to  scrutinize  the  British  system,  with  the  expec 
tation  of  finding  little  besides  the  effects  of  her  selfish 
and  angry  policy. 

Yet  of  the  great  sum  of  nearly  eight  millions  and 


80 


a  half,  the  amount  of  the  products  before-mentioned 
sold  in  her  markets,  two  articles  only  are  dutied  by 
way  of  restriction.  Bread-stuff  is  dutied  so  high  in 
the  market  of  Great  Britain,  as  in  times  of  plenty  to  ex 
clude  it,  and  this  is  done  from  the  desire  to  favor  her  own 
farmers.  The  mover  of  the  resolutions  justified  the  ex 
clusion  of  our  bread-stuff  from  the  French  West  Indies 
by  their  permanent  regulations,  because,  he  said,  they 
were  bound  to  prefer  their  own  products  to  those  even 
of  the  United  States.  It  would  seem  that  the  same 
apology  would  do  for  England,  in  her  home  market. 
But  what  will  do  for  the  vindication  of  one  nation 
becomes  invective  against  another.  The  criminal 
nation,  however,  receives  our  bread-stuff  in  the  West 
Indies  free,  and  excludes  other  foreign,  so  as  to  give 
our  producers  the  monopoly  of  the  supply.  This  is 
no  merit  in  the  judgment  of  the  mover  of  the  resolu 
tions,  because  it  is  a  fragment  of  her  old  colony 
system.  Notwithstanding  the  nature  of  the  duties  on 
bread-stuff  in  Great  Britain,  it  has  been  clearly  shown 
that  she  is  a  better  customer  for  that  article,  in 
Europe,  than  her  neighbor  France.  The  latter,  in 
ordinary  times,  is  a  poor  customer  for  bread-stuff, for  the 
same  reason  that  our  own  country  is,  because  she  pro 
duces  it  herself,  and  therefore  France  permits  it  to  be 
imported,  and  the  United  States  do  the  like.  Great 
Britain  often  wants  the  article,  and  then  she  receives 
it ;  no  country  can  be  expected  to  buy  what  it  does 
not  want.  The  bread-stuff  sold  in  the  European 
dominions  of  Britain,  in  the  year  1790,  amounted  to 
one  million  eighty-seven  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
forty  dollars. 

Whale  oil  pays  the  heavy  duty  of  eighteen  pounds 


81 


three  shillings  sterling  per  ton ;  yet  spermaceti  oil 
found  a  market  there  to  the  value  of  eighty-one 
thousand  and  forty-eight  dollars. 

Thus  it  appears  that  of  eight  millions  and  a  half 
sold  to  Great  Britain  and  her  dominions,  only  the 
value  of  one  million  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight 
thousand  dollars  was  under  duty  of  a  restrictive 
nature.  The  bread-stuff  is  hardly  to  be  considered  as 
within  the  description ;  yet,  to  give  the  argument  its 
full  force,  what  is  it?  About  one  eighth  part  is 
restricted.  To  proceed  with  the  residue :  — 

Indigo  to  the  amount  of $473,830 

Live  Animals  to  the  West  Indies 62,415 

Flax-Seed  to  Great  Britain 219,924- 

Total $756,169 

These  articles  are  received  duty  free,  which  is  a 
good  foot  to  the  trade.  Yet  we  find,  good  as  it  is, 
the  bulk  of  our  exports  is  received  on  even  better 
terms  :  — 

Flour  to  the  British  West  Indies $858,006 

Grain 273,505 

Free  ;  while  other  foreign  flour  and  grain  are  prohibited. 

Tobacco  to  Great  Britain 2,754,493 

Ditto  to  the  West  Indies 22,816 

One  shilling  and  three  pence  sterling,  duty  ;  three  shil 
lings  and  sixpence  on  other  foreign  tobacco. 
In  the  West  Indies  other  foreign  tobacco  is  prohibited. 

Rice  to  Great  Britain 773,852 

Seven  shillings  and  four  pence  per  cwt.  duty  ;  eight  shil 
lings  and  ten  pence  on  other  foreign  rice. 

To  West  Indies 180,077 

Other  foreign  rice  prohibited.  

Amount  carried  forward $4,862,749 

11 


82 


Amount  brought  forward $4,862,749 

Wood  to  Great  Britain 240,174 

Free  ;  higher  duties  on  other  foreign. 

To  West  Indies 382,481 

Free  ;  other  foreign  prohibited. 

Pot  and  pearl  ashes 747,078 

Free  ;  two  shillings  and  three  pence  on  other  foreign, 
equal  to  ten  dollars  per  ton. 

Naval  Stores  to  Great  Britain 190,670 

Higher  duties  on  other  foreign. 

To  West  Indies 6,162 

Free  ;  other  foreign  prohibited. 

Iron  to  Great  Britain 81,612 

Free  ;  duties  on  other  foreign-. 

$6,510,926 

Thus  it  appears  that  nearly  seven-eighths  of  the 
exports  to  the  British  dominions  are  received  on  terms 
of  positive  favor.  Foreigners,  our  rivals  in  the  sale 
of  these  articles,  are  either  absolutely  shut  out  of 
their  market  by  prohibitions,  or  discouraged  in  their 
competition  with  us  by  higher  duties.  There  is  some 
restriction  it  is  admitted,  but  there  is,  to  balance  it,  a 
large  amount  received  duty  free  ;  and  a  half  goes  to 
the  account  of  privilege  and  favor.  This  is  better 
than  she  treats  any  other  foreign  nation.  It  is  better, 
indeed,  than  she  treats  her  own  subjects,  because  they 
are  by  this  means  deprived  of  a  free  and  open  market. 
It  is  better  than  our  footing  with  any  nation  with 
whom  we  have  treaties.  It  has  been  demonstratively 
shown  that  it  is  better  than  the  footing  on  which 
France  receives  either  the  like  articles  or  the  aggre 
gate  of  our  products.  The  best  proof  in  the  world 
is  that  they  are  not  sent  to  France.  The  merchants 
will  find  out  the  best  market  sooner  than  we  shall. 


83 


The  footing  of  our  exports,  under  the  British 
system,  is  better  than  that  of  their  exports  to  the 
United  States,  under  our  system.  Nay,  it  is  better 
than  the  freedom  of  commerce,  which  is  one  of  the 
visions  for  which  our  solid  prosperity  is  to  be  hazarded; 
for,  suppose  we  could  batter  down  her  system  of  pro 
hibitions  and  restrictions,  it  would  be  gaining  a  loss ; 
one-eighth  is  restricted,  and  more  than  six-eighths 
has  restrictions  in  its  favor.  It  is  as  plain  as  figures 
can  make  it,  that,  if  a  state  of  freedom  for  our  ex 
ports  is  at  par,  the  present  system  raises  them,  in 
point  of  privilege,  above  par.  To  suppose  that  we 
can  terrify  them,  by  these  resolutions,  to  abolish  their 
restrictions,  and  at  the  same  time  to  maintain  in  our 
favor  their  duties,  to  exclude  other  foreigners  from 
their  market,  is  too  absurd  to  be  refuted. 

We  have  heard  that  the  market  of  France  is  the 
great  centre  of  our  interests  ;  we  are  to  look  to  her, 
and  not  to  England,  for  advantages,  being,  as  the  style 
of  theory  is,  our  best  customer  and  best  friend,  show 
ing  to  our  trade  particular  favor  and  privilege,  while 
England  manifests  in  her  system  such  narrow  and 
selfish  views.  It  is  strange  to  remark  such  a  pointed 
refutation  of  assertions  and  opinions  by  facts.  The 
amount  sent  to  France  herself  is  very  trivial.  Either 
our  merchants  are  ignorant  of  the  best  markets,  or 
those  which  they  prefer  are  the  best ;  and  if  the 
English  markets,  in  spite  of  the  alleged  ill  usage,  are 
still  preferred  to  the  French,  it  is  a  proof  of  the 
superior  advantages  of  the  former  over  the  latter. 
The  arguments  I  have  adverted  to  oblige  those  who 
urge  them  to  make  a  greater  difference  in  favor  of 
the  English  than  the  true  state  of  facts  will  warrant. 


84 


Indeed,  if  they  persist  in  their  arguments,  they  are 
bound  to  deny  their  own  conclusions.  They  are 
bound  to  admit  this  position :  If  France  receives 
little  of  such  of  our  products  as  Great  Britain  takes 
on  terms  of  privilege  and  favor,  because  of  that  favor, 
it  allows  the  value  of  that  favored  footing.  If  France 
takes  little  of  our  articles,  because  she  does  not  want 
them,  it  shows  the  absurdity  of  looking  to  her  as  the 
best  customer. 

It  may  be  said,  and  truly,  that  Great  Britain  re 
gards  only  her  own  interest  in  these  arrangements  ; 
so  much  the  better.  If  it  is  her  interest  to  afford  to 
our  commerce  more  encouragement  than  France 
gives  —  if  she  does  this  when  she  is  inveterate  against 
us,  as  it  is  alleged,  and  when  we  are  indulging  an 
avowed  hatred  towards  her,  and  partiality  towards 
France,  it  shows  that  we  have  very  solid  ground  to 
rely  on.  Her  interest  is,  according  to  this  statement, 
stronger  than  our  passions,  stronger  than  her  own, 
and  is  the  more  to  be  depended  on,  as  it  cannot  be 
put  to  any  more  trying  experiment  in  future.  The 
good  will  and  friendship  of  nations  are  hollow  foun 
dations  to  build  our  systems  upon.  Mutual  interest 
is  a  bottom  of  rock ;  the  fervor  of  transient  senti 
ments  is  not  better  than  straw  or  stubble.  Some 
gentlemen  have  lamented  this  distrust  of  any  relation 
between  nations,  except  an  interested  one  ;  but  the 
substitution  of  any  other  principle  could  produce  little 
else  than  the  hypocrisy  of  sentiment  and  an  instability 
of  affairs.  It  would  be  relying  on  what  is  not  stable, 
instead  of  what  is ;  it  would  introduce  into  politics 
the  jargon  of  romance.  It  is  in  this  sense,  and  this 
only,  that  the  word  favor  is  used ;  a  state  of  things 


85 


so  arranged  as  to  produce  our  profit  and  advantage, 
though  intended  by  Great  Britain  merely  for  her  own. 
The  disposition  of  a  nation  is  immaterial ;  the  fact 
that  we  profit  by  their  system  cannot  be  so  to  this 
discussion. 

The  next  point  is  to  consider  whether  our  imports 
are  on  a  good  footing,  or,  in  other  words,  whether  we 
are  in  a  situation  to  buy  what  we  have  occasion  for 
at  a  cheap  rate.  In  this  view,  the  systems  of  the 
commercial  nations  are  not  to  be  complained  of,  as 
all  are  desirous  of  selling  the  products  of  their  labor. 
Great  Britain  is  not  censured  in  this  respect.  The 
objection  is  rather  of  the  opposite  kind,  that  we  buy 
too  cheap,  and  therefore  consume  too  much  ;  and 
that  we  take  not  only  as  much  as  we  can  pay  for,  but 
to  the  extent  of  our  credit  also.  There  is  less  free 
dom  of  importation,  however,  from  the  West  Indies. 
In  this  respect,  France  is  more  restrictive  than 
England^  for  the  former  allows  the  exportation  to  us 
of  only  rum  and  molasses,  while  England  admits  that 
of  sugar,  coffee,  and  other  principal  West  India 
products.  Yet,  even  here,  when  the  preference 
seems  to  be  decidedly  due  to  the  British  system,  occa 
sion  is  taken  to  extol  that  of  the  French.  We  are 
told  that  they  sell  us  the  chief  part  of  the  molasses, 
which  is  consumed  or  manufactured  into  rum  ;  and 
that  a  great  and  truly  important  branch,  the  distillery, 
is  kept  up  by  their  liberality  in  furnishing  the  raw 
material.  There  is  at  every  step  matter  to  confirm 
the  remark,  that  nations  have  framed  their  regulations 
to  suit  their  own  interests,  not  ours.  France  is  a 
great  brandy  manufacturer  ;  she  will  not  admit  rum, 
therefore,  even  from  her  own  islands,  because  it  would 


86 


supplant  the  consumption  of  brandy.  The  molasses 
was,  for  that  reason,  some  years  ago  of  no  value  in 
her  islands,  and  was  not  even  saved  in  casks.  But 
the  demand  from  our  country  soon  raised  its  value. 
The  policy  of  England  has  been  equally  selfish.  The 
molasses  is  distilled  in  her  islands,  because 'she  has  no 
manufacture  of  brandy  to  suffer  by  its  sale. 

A  question  remains  respecting  the  state  of  our 
navigation.  If  we  pay  no  regard  to  the  regulations 
of  foreign  nations,  and  ask  whether  this  valuable 
branch  of  our  industry  and  capital  is  in  a  distressed 
and  sickly  state,  we  shall  find  it  is  in  a  strong  and 
flourishing  condition.  If  the  quantity  of  shipping 
was  declining,  if  it  was  unemployed,  even  at  low 
freight,  I  should  say  it  must  be  sustained  and  en 
couraged.  No  such  thing  is  asserted.  Seamen's 
wages  are  high,  freights  are  high,  and  American  bot 
toms  in  full  employment.  But  the  complaint  is,  our 
vessels  are  not  permitted  to  go  to  the  British  West 
Indies.  It  is  even  affirmed  that  no  civilized  country 
treats  us  so  ill  in  that  respect.  Spain  and  Portugal 
prohibit  the  traffic  to  their  possessions,  not  only  in  our 
vessels,  but  in  their  own,  which,  according  to  the  style 
of  the  resolutions,  is  worse  treatment  than  we  meet 
with  from  the  British.  It  is  also  asserted,  and  on  as 
bad  ground,  that  our  vessels  are  excluded  from  most 
of  the  British  markets. 

This  is  not  true  in  any  sense.  We  are  admitted 
into  the  greater  number  of  her  ports,  in  our  own 
vessels  ;  and  by  far  the  greater  value  of  our  exports  is 
sold  in  British  ports,  into  which  our  vessels  are  re 
ceived,  not  only  on  a  good  footing,  compared  with 
other  foreigners,  but  on  terms  of  positive  favor,  on 


87 


better  terms  than  British  vessels  are  admitted  into  our 
own  ports.  We  are  not  subject  to  the  alien  duties  ; 
and  the  light  money,  &c.,of  Is.  9d.  sterling  per  ton  is 
less  than  our  foreign  tonnage  duty,  not  to  mention 
the  ten  per  cent  on  the  duties  on  goods  in  foreign 
bottoms. 

But  in  the  port  of  London  our  vessels  are  received 
free.  It  is  for  the  unprejudiced  mind  to  compare 
these  facts  with  the  assertions  we  have  heard  so  con 
fidently  and  so  feelingly  made  by  the  mover  of  the 
resolutions,  that  we  are  excluded  from  most  of  their 
ports,  and  that  no  civilized  nation  treats  our  vessels  so 
ill  as  the  British. 

The  tonnage  of  the  vessels  employed  between  Great 
Britain  and  her  dependencies  and  the  United  States 
is  called  two  hundred  and  twenty  thousand ;  and  the 
whole  of  this  is  represented  as  our  just  right.  The 
same  gentleman  speaks  of  our  natural  right  to  the 
carriage  of  our  own  articles,  and  that  we  may  and 
ought  to  insist  upon  our  equitable  share.  Yet,  soon 
after,  he  uses  the  language  of  monopoly,  and  repre 
sents  the  whole  carriage  of  imports  and  exports  as  the 
proper  object  of  our  efforts,  and  all  that  others  carry 
as  a  clear  loss  to  us.  If  an  equitable  share  of  the  car 
riage  means  half,  we  have  it  already,  and  more,  and 
our  proportion  is  rapidly  increasing.  If  any  thing  is 
meant  by  the  natural  right  of  carriage,  one  would 
imagine  that  it  belongs  to  him,  whoever  he  may  be, 
who,  having  bought  our  produce  and  made  himself 
the  owner,  thinks  proper  to  take  it  with  him  to  his 
own  country.  It  is  neither  our  policy  nor  our  design 
to  check  the  sale  of  our  produce.  We  invite  every 
description  of  purchasers,  because  we  expect  to  sell 


88 


dearest,  when  the  number  and  competition  of  the 
buyers  is  the  greatest.  For  this  reason  the  total  ex 
clusion  of  foreigners  and  their  vessels  from  the  pur 
chase  and  carriage  of  our  exports  is  an  advantage,  in 
respect  to  navigation,  which  has  disadvantage  to  bal 
ance  it,  in  respect  to  the  price  of  produce.  It  is  with 
this  reserve  we  ought  to  receive  the  remark,  that  the 
carriage  of  our  exports  should  be  our  object,  rather 
than  that  of  our  imports.  By  going  with  our  vessels 
into  foreign  ports  we  buy  our  imports  in  the  best 
market.  By  giving  a  steady  and  moderate  encourage 
ment  to  our  own  shipping,  without  pretending  vio 
lently  to  interrupt  the  course  of  business,  experience 
will  soon  establish  that  order  of  things  which  is  most 
beneficial  to  the  exporter,  the  importer,  and  the  ship 
owner.  The  best  interest  of  agriculture  is  the  true 
interest  of  trade. 

In  a  trade,  mutually  beneficial,  it  is  strangely  ab 
surd  to  consider  the  gain  of  others  as  our  loss.  Ad 
mitting  it,  however,  for  argument  sake,  yet  it  should 
be  noticed  that  the  loss  of  two  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  tons  of  shipping  is  computed  according  to 
the  apparent  tonnage.  Our  vessels  not  being  allowed 
to  go  to  the  British  West  Indies,  their  vessels,  making 
frequent  voyages,  appear  in  the  entries  over  and  over 
again.  In  the  trade  to  the  European  dominions  of 
Great  Britain,  the  distance  being  greater,  our  vessels 
are  not  so  often  entered.  Both  these  circumstances 
give  a  false  show  to  the  amount  of  British  tonnage, 
compared  with  the  American.  It  is,  however,  very 
pleasing  to  the  mind,  to  see  that  our  tonnage  exceeds 
the  British  in  the  European  trade.  For  various 
reasons,  some  of  which  will  be  mentioned  hereafter, 


89 


the  tonnage  in  the  West  India  trade  is  not  the  proper 
subject  of  calculation.  In  the  European  comparison 
we  have  more  tonnage  in  the  British  than  in  the 
French  commerce ;  it  is  indeed  more  than  four  to 
one. 

The  great  quantity  of  British  tonnage  employed  in 
our  trade  is  also,  in  a  great  measure,  owing  to  the 
large  capitals  of  their  merchants,  employed  in  the  buy 
ing  and  exporting  our  productions.  If  we  would 
banish  the  ships,  we  must  strike  at  the  root,  and 
banish  the  capital.  And  this,  before  we  have  capital 
of  our  own  grown  up  to  replace  it,  would  be  an  opera 
tion  of  no  little  violence  and  injury,  to  our  Southern 
brethren  especially. 

Independently  of  this  circumstance,  Great  Britain 
is  an  active  and  intelligent  rival  in  the  navigation 
line.  Her  ships  are  dearer,  and  the  provisioning  her 
seamen  is  perhaps  rather  dearer  than  ours :  on  the 
other  hand,  the  rate  of  interest  is  lower  in  England, 
and  so  are  seamen's  wages.  It  would  be  improper, 
therefore,  to  consider  the  amount  of  British  tonnage 
in  our  trade  as  a  proof  of  a  bad  state  of  things,  arising 
either  from  the  restrictions  of  that  government  or  the 
negligence  or  timidity  of  this.  We  are  to  charge  it 
to  causes  which  are  more  connected  with  the  natural 
competition  of  capital  and  industry,  —  causes  which  in 
fact  retarded  the  growth  of  our  shipping  more  when 
we  were  colonies  and  our  ships  were  free  than  since 
the  adoption  of  the  present  government. 

It  has  been  said  with  emphasis  that  the  Constitution 
grew  out  of  the  complaints  of  the  nation  respecting 
commerce,  especially  that  with  the  British  dominions. 
What  was  then  lamented  by  our  patriots  ?  Feeble- 

12 


90 


ness  of  the  public  counsels  ;  the  shadow  of  union, 
and  scarcely  the  shadow  of  public  credit ;  everywhere 
despondence,  the  pressure  of  evils,  not  only  great,  but 
portentous  of  civil  distractions.  These  were  the 
grievances ;  and  what  more  was  then  desired  than 
their  remedies  ?  Is  it  possible  to  survey  this  pros 
perous  country  and  to  assert  that  they  have  been 
delayed  1  Trade  flourishes  on  our  wharves,  although 
it  droops  in  speeches.  Manufactures  have  risen 
under  the  shade  of  protecting  duties  from  almost 
nothing  to  such  a  state  that  we  are  even  told  we  can 
depend  on  the  domestic  supply  if  the  foreign  should 
cease.  The  fisheries,  which  we  found  in  decline,  are 
in  the  most  vigorous  growth ;  the  whale  fishery, 
which  our  allies  would  have  transferred  to  Dunkirk, 
now  extends  over  the  whole  ocean.  To  that  hardy 
race  of  men  the  sea  is  but  a  park  for  hunting  its 
monsters ;  such  is  their  activity,  the  deepest  abysses 
scarcely  afford  to  their  prey  a  hiding-place.  Look 
around,  and  see  how  the  frontier  circle  widens,  how 
the  interior  improves ;  and  let  it  be  repeated  that  the 
hopes  of  the  people,  when  they  formed  this  Constitu 
tion,  have  been  frustrated. 

But  if  it  should  happen  that  our  prejudices  prove 
stronger  than  our  senses,  —  if  it  should  be  believed 
that  our  farmers  and  merchants  see  their  products 
and  ships  and  wharves  going  to  decay  together,  and 
they  are  ignorant  or  silent  on  their  own  ruin  ;  still 
the  public  documents  would  not  disclose  so  alarming 
a  state  of  our  affairs.  Our  imports  are  obtained  so 
plentifully  and  cheaply  that  one  of  the  avowed  ob 
jects  of  the  resolutions  is  to  make  them  scarcer  and 
dearer.  Our  exports,  so  far  from  languishing,  have 


91 


increased  two  millions  of  dollars  in  a  year.  Our 
navigation  is  found  to  be  augmented  beyond  the  most 
sanguine  expectation.  We  hear  of  the  vast  advan 
tage  the  English  derived  from  the  navigation  act ;  and 
we  are  asked,  in  a  tone  of  accusation,  Shall  we  sit 
still  and  do  nothing  ?  Who  is  bold  enough  to  say, 
Congress  has  done  nothing  for  the  encouragement  of 
American  navigation  I  To  counteract  the  navigation 
act,  we  have  laid  on  British  vessels  a  higher  tonnage 
than  our  own  vessels  pay  in  their  ports ;  and  what  is 
much  more  effectual,  we  have  imposed  ten  per  cent 
on  the  duties,  when  the  dutied  articles  are  borne  in 
foreign  bottoms.  We  have  also  made  the  coasting 
trade  a  monopoly  to  our  own  vessels.  Let  those  who 
have  asserted  that  this  is  nothing  compare  facts  with 
the  regulations  which  produced  them. 

Tonnage.  Tons.  Excess  of  American  Tonnage. 

American,  1789 297,468 

Foreign 265,116 

32,352 
American,  1790 347,663 

Foreign 258,916 

88,747 
American,  1791 363,810 

Foreign 240,799 

123,011 
American,  1792 415,330 

Foreign 244,263 

171,067 

Is  not  this  increase  of  American  shipping  rapid 
enough?  Many  persons  say  it  is  too  rapid,  and 
attracts  too  much  capital  for  the  circumstances  of  the 
country.  I  cannot  readily  persuade  myself  to  think 
so  valuable  a  branch  of  employment  thrives  too  fast. 
But  a  steady  and  sure  encouragement  is  more  to  be 


92 


relied  on  than  violent  methods  of  forcing  its  growth. 
It  is  not  clear  that  the  quantity  of  our  navigation, 
including  our  coasting  and  fishing  vessels,  is  less  in 
proportion  to  those  of  that  nation ;  in  that  computa 
tion  we  shall  probably  find  that  we  are  already  more 
a  navigating  people  than  the  English. 

As  this  is  a  growing  country,  we  have  the  most 
stable  ground  of  dependence  on  the  corresponding 
growth  of  our  navigation ;  and  that  the  increasing 
demand  for  shipping  will  rather  fall  to  the  share  of 
Americans  than  foreigners  is  not  to  be  denied.  We 
did  expect  this  from  the  nature  of  our  own  laws ;  we 
have  been  confirmed  in  it  by  experience,  and  we 
know  that  an  American  bottom  is  actually  preferred 
to  a  foreign  one.  In  cases  where  one  partner  is  an 
American  and  another  a  foreigner,  the  ship  is  made 
an  American  bottom.  A  fact  of  this  kind  over 
throws  a  whole  theory  of  reasoning  on  the  necessity 
of  further  restrictions.  It  shows  that  the  work  of 
restriction  is  already  done. 

If  we  take  the  aggregate  view  of  our  commercial 
interests,  we  shall  find  much  more  occasion  for  satis 
faction,  and  even  exultation,  than  complaint,  and 
none  for  despondence.  It  would  be  too  bold  to  say 
"that  our  condition  is  so  eligible  there  is  nothing  to  be 
wished.  Neither  the  order  of  Nature  nor  the  allot 
ments  of  Providence  afford  perfect  content ;  and  it 
would  be  absurd  to  expect  in  our  politics  what  is 
denied  in  the  laws  of  our  being.  The  nations  with 
whom  we  have  intercourse  have,  without  exception, 
more  or  less  restricted  their  commerce.  They  have 
framed  their  regulations  to  suit  their  real  or  fancied 
interests.  The  code  of  France  is  as  full  of  restrictions 


93 


as  that  of  England.  We  have  regulations  of  our 
own,  and  they  are  unlike  those  of  any  other  country. 
Inasmuch  as  the  interest  and  circumstances  of  nations 
vary  so  essentially,  the  project  of  an  exact  reciprocity 
on  our  part  is  a  vision.  What  we  desire  is  to  have 
not  an  exact  reciprocity,  but  an  intercourse  of  mutual 
benefit  and  convenience. 

It  has  scarcely  been  so  much  as  insinuated  that  the 
change  contemplated  will  be  a  profitable  one ;  that  it 
will  enable  us  to  sell  dearer  and  to  buy  cheaper.  On 
the  contrary,  we  are  invited  to  submit  to  the  hazards 
and  losses  of  a  conflict  with  our  customers,  —  to 
engage  in  a  contest  of  self-denial.  For  what,  —  to  ob 
tain  better  markets  I  No  such  thing  ;  but  to  shut  up 
forever,  if  possible,  the  best  market  we  have  for  our 
exports,  and  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  dearest  and 
scarcest  markets  for  our  imports.  And  this  is  to  be 
done  for  the  benefit  of  trade,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  more 
correctly  said,  for  the  benefit  of  France.  This  lan 
guage  is  not  a  little  inconsistent  and  strange  from 
those  who  recommend  a  non-importation  agreement, 
and  who  think  we  should  even  renounce  the  sea  and 
devote  ourselves  to  agriculture.  Thus,  to  make  our 
trade  more  free,  it  is  to  be  embarrassed,  and  violently 
shifted  from  one  country  to  another,  not  according  to 
the  interest  of  the  merchants,  but  the  visionary 
theories  and  capricious  rashness  of  the  legislators. 
To  make  trade  better,  it  is  to  be  made  nothing. 

So  far  as  commerce  and  navigation  are  regarded, 
the  pretences  for  this  contest  are  confined  to  two. 
We  are  not  allowed  to  carry  manufactured  articles  to 
Great  Britain,  nor  any  products,  except  of  our  own 
growth ;  and  we  are  not  permitted  to  go  with  our 


94 


own  vessels  to  the  West  Indies.  The  former,  which 
is  a  provision  of  the  navigation  act,  is  of  little  impor 
tance  to  our  interests,  as  our  trade  is  chiefly  a  direct 
one,  our  shipping  not  being  equal  to  the  carrying  for 
other  nations ;  and  our  manufactured  articles  are  not 
furnished  in  quantities  for  exportation,  and,  if  they 
were,  Great  Britain  would  not  be  a  customer.  So 
far,  therefore,  the  restriction  is  rather  nominal  than 
real. 

The  exclusion  of  our  vessels  from  the  West  Indies 
is  of  more  importance.  When  we  propose  to  make 
an  effort  to  force  a  privilege  from  Great  Britain, 
which  she  is  loath  to  yield  to  us,  it  is  necessary  to 
compare  the  value  of  the  object  with  the  effort,  and, 
above  all,  to  calculate  very  warily  the  probability  of 
success.  A  trivial  thing  deserves  not  a  great  exer 
tion  ;  much  less  ought  we  to  stake  a  very  great  good 
in  possession  for  a  slight  chance  of  a  less  good.  The 
carriage  of  one  half  the  exports  and  imports  to  and 
from  the  British  West  Indies  is  the  object  to  be  con 
tended  for.  Our  whole  exports  to  Great  Britain  are 
to  be  hazarded.  We  sell  on  terms  of  privilege  and 
positive  favor,  as  it  has  been  abundantly  shown,  near 
seven  millions  to  the  dominions  of  Great  Britain.  We 
are  to  risk  the  privilege  in  this  great  amount  —  for 
what  ]  For  the  freight  only  of  one  half  the  British 
West  India  trade  with  the  United  States.  It  belongs 
to  commercial  men  to  calculate  the  entire  value  of  the 
freight  alluded  to.  But  it  cannot  bear  much  propor 
tion  to  the  amount  of  seven  millions.  Besides,  if  we 
are  denied  the  privilege  of  carrying  our  articles  in  our 
vessels  to  the  islands,  we  are  on  a  footing  of  privilege 
in  the  sale  of  them.  We  have  one  privilege,  if  not 


95 


two.  It  is  readily  admitted  that  it  is  a  desirable 
thing  to  have  our  vessels  allowed  to  go  to  the  English 
islands  ;  but  the  value  of  the  object  has  its  limits,  and 
we  go  unquestionably  beyond  them  when  we  throw 
our  whole  exports  into  confusion,  and  run  the  risk  of 
losing  our  best  markets  for  the  sake  of  forcing  a  per 
mission  to  carry  our  own  products  to  one  of  those 
markets  in  which,  too,  it  should  be  noticed,  we  sell 
much  less  than  we  do  to  Great  Britain  herself.  If  to 
this  we  add  that  the  success  of  the  contest  is  grounded 
on  the  sanguine  and  passionate  hypothesis  of  our 
being  able  to  starve  the  islanders,  which,  on  trial,  may 
prove  false,  and  which  our  being  involved  in  the  war 
would  overthrow  at  once,  we  may  conclude,  without 
going  further  into  the  discussion,  that  prudence  for 
bids  our  engaging  in  the  hazards  of  a  commercial 
war ;  that  great  things  should  not  be  staked  against 
such  as  are  of  much  less  value  ;  that  what  we  possess 
should  not  be  risked  for  what  we  desire,  without  great 
odds  in  our  favor ;  still  less  if  the  chance  is  infinitely 
against  us. 

If  these  considerations  should  fail  of  their  effect,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  go  into  an  examination  of  the 
tendency  of  the  system  of  discrimination  to  redress 
and  avenge  all  our  wrongs,  and  to  realize  all  our  hopes. 

It  has  been  avowed  that  we  are  to  look  to  France, 
not  to  England,  for  advantages  in  trade ;  we  are  to 
show  our  spirit,  and  to  manifest  towards  those  who 
are  called  enemies  the  spirit  of  enmity,  and  towards 
those  we  call  friends  something  more  than  passive 
good-will.  We  are  to  take  active  measures  to  force 
trade  out  of  its  accustomed  channels,  and  to  shift  it 
by  such  means  from  England  to  France.  The  care  of 


96 


the  concerns  of  the  French  manufacturers  may  be  left 
perhaps  as  well  in  the  hands  of  the  convention,  as  to 
be  usurped  into  our  own.  However  our  zeal  might 
engage  us  to  interpose,  our  duty  to  our  own  immediate 
constituents  demands  all  our  attention.  To  volunteer 
it  in  order  to  excite  competition  in  one  foreign  nation 
to  supplant  another  is  a  very  strange  business ;  and 
to  do  it,  as  it  has  been  irresistibly  proved  it  will 
happen,  at  the  charge  and  cost  of  our  own  citizens, 
is  a  thing  equally  beyond  all  justification  and  all 
example.  What  is  it  but  to  tax  our  own  people  for 
a  time,  perhaps  for  a  long  time,  in  order  that  the 
French  may  at  last  sell  as  cheap  as  the  English] 
cheaper  they  cannot,  nor  is  it  so  much  as  pretended. 
The  tax  will  be  a  loss  to  us,  and  the  fancied  tendency 
of  it  not  a  gain  to  this  country  in  the  event,  but  to 
France.  We  shall  pay  more  for  a  time,  and  in  the 
end  pay  no  less ;  for  no  object  but  that  one  nation 
may  receive  our  money  instead  of  the  other.  If  this 
is  generous  towards  France,  it  is  not  just  to  America. 
It  is  sacrificing  what  we  owe  to  our  constituents  to 
what  we  pretend  to  feel  towards  strangers.  We  have 
indeed  heard  a  very  ardent  profession  of  gratitude  to 
that  nation,  and  infinite  reliance  seems  to  be  placed 
on  her  readiness  to  sacrifice  her  interest  to  ours.  The 
story  of  this  generous  strife  should  be  left  to  ornament 
fiction.  This  is  not  the  form  nor  the  occasion  to 
-discharge  our  obligations  of  any  sort  to  any  foreign 
nation ;  it  concerns  not  our  feelings  but  our  interests, 
yet  the  debate  has  often  soared  high  above  the  smoke 
of  business  into  the  epic  regions.  The  market  for 
tobacco,  tar,  turpentine,  and  pitch,  has  become  matter 
of  sentiment,  and  given  occasion  alternately  to  rouse 
our  courage  and  our  gratitude. 


97 


If,  instead  of  hexameters,  we  prefer  discussing  our 
relation  to  foreign  nations  in  the  common  language, 
we  shall  not  find  that  we  are  bound  by  treaty  to 
establish  a  preference  in  favor  of  the  French.  The 
treaty  is  founded  on  a  professed  reciprocity,  favor  for 
favor.  Why  is  the  principle  of  treaty  or  no  treaty 
made  so  essential,  when  the  favor  we  are  going  to 
give  is  an  act  of  supererogation  ?  It  is  not  expected 
by  one  of  the  nations  in  treaty ;  for  Holland  has 
declared  in  her  treaty  with  us  that  such  preferences 
are  the  fruitful  source  of  animosity,  embarrassment, 
and  war.  The  French  have  set  no  such  example. 
They  discriminate,  in  their  late  navigation  act,  not  as 
we  are  exhorted  to  do,  between  nations  in  treaty  and 
not  in  treaty,  but  between  nations  at  war  and  not  at 
war  with  them  ;  so  that,  when  peace  takes  place, 
England  will  stand  by  that  act  on  the  same  ground 
with  ourselves.  If  we  expect  by  giving  favor  to  get 
favor  in  return,  it  is  improper  to  make  a  law.  The 
business  belongs  to  the  executive,  in  whose  hands  the 
Constitution  has  placed  the  power  of  dealing  with 
foreign  nations.  It  is  singular  to  negotiate  legis 
latively  ;  to  make  by  a  law  half  a  bargain,  expecting 
a  French  law  would  make  the  other.  The  footing  of 
treaty  or  no  treaty  is  different  from  the  ground  taken 
by  the  mover  himself  in  supporting  his  system.  He 
has  said  favor  for  favor  was  principle ;  nations  not  in 
treaty  grant  favors,  those  in  treaty  restrict  our  trade. 
Yet  the  principle  of  discriminating  in  favor  of  nations 
in  treaty  is  not  only  inconsistent  with  the  declared 
doctrine  of  the  mover  and  with  facts,  but  it  is  incon 
sistent  with  itself.  Nations  not  in  treaty  are  so  very 
unequally  operated  upon  by  the  resolutions,  it  is 

13 


98 


absurd  to  refer  them  to  one  principle.  Spain  and 
Portugal  have  no  treaties  with  us,  and  are  not  dis 
posed  to  have.  Spain  would  not  accede  to  the  treaty 
of  commerce  between  us  and  France,  though  she  was 
invited.  Portugal  would  not  sign  a  treaty  after  it  had 
been  discussed  and  signed  on  our  part.  They  have 
few  ships  or  manufactures,  and  do  not  feed  their 
colonies  from  us.  Of  course  there  is  little  for  the 
discrimination  to  operate  upon.  The  operation  on 
nations  in  treaty  is  equally  a  satire  on  the  principle 
of  discrimination.  In  Sweden,  with  whom  we  have  a 
treaty,  duties  rise  higher  if  borne  in  our  bottoms  than 
in  her  own.  France  does  the  like  in  respect  to 
tobacco,  two  and  a  half  livres  the  quintal,  which  in 
effect  prohibits  our  vessels  to  freight  tobacco.  The 
mover  has,  somewhat  unluckily,  proposed  to  except 
from  this  system  nations  having  no  navigation  acts, 
in  which  case  France  would  become  the  subject  of 
unfriendly  discrimination,  as  the  House  have  been 
informed  since  the  debate  began  that  she  has  passed 
such  acts. 

I  might  remark  on  the  disposition  of  England  to 
settle  a  commercial  treaty,  and  the  known  desire  of 
the  Marquis  of  Lansdowne  (then  Prime  Minister)  in 
1783,  to  form  such  a  one  on  the  most  liberal  prin 
ciples.  The  history  of  that  business,  and  the  causes 
which  prevented  its  conclusion,  ought  to  be  made 
known  to  the  public.  The  powers  given  to  our 
ministers  were  revoked,  and  yet  we  hear  that  no  such 
disposition  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  has  existed. 
The  declaration  of  Mr  Pitt  in  Parliament,  in  June, 
1792,  as  well  as  the  correspondence  with  Mr.  Ham 
mond,  show  a  desire  to  enter  upon  a  negotiation. 


99 


The  statement  of  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
on  the  privileges  and  restrictions  of  our  commerce, 
that  Great  Britain  has  shown  no  inclination  to  meddle 
with  the  subject,  seems  to  be  incorrect. 

The  expected  operation  of  the  resolutions  on  differ 
ent  nations  is  obvious,  and  I  need  not  examine  their 
supposed  tendency  to  dispose  Great  Britain  to  settle 
an  equitable  treaty  with  this  country ;  but  I  ask 
whether  those  who  hold  such  language  towards  that 
nation  as  I  have  heard  can  be  supposed  to  desire 
a  treaty,  and  friendly  connection.  It  seems  to  be 
thought  a  merit  to  express  hatred ;  it  is  common  and 
natural  to  desire  to  annoy  and  to  crush  those  whom 
we  hate,  but  it  is  somewhat  singular  to  pretend  that 
the  design  of  our  anger  is  to  embrace  them. 

The  tendency  of  angry  measures  to  friendly  dis 
positions  and  arrangements  is  not  obvious.  We  affect 
to  believe  that  we  shall  quarrel  ourselves  into  their 
good-will :  we  shall  beat  a  new  path  to  peace  and 
friendship  with  Great  Britain,  one  that  is  grown  up 
with  thorns  and  lined  with  man-traps  and  spring- 
guns.  It  should  be  called  the  war  path. 

To  do  justice  to  the  subject,  its  promised  advantages 
should  be  examined.  Exciting  the  competition  of 
the  French  is  to  prove  an  advantage  to  this  country 
by  opening  a  new  market  with  that  nation.  This  is 
scarcely  intelligible.  If  it  means  anything,  it  is  an 
admission  that  their  market  is  not  a  good  one  or  that 
they  have  not  taken  measures  to  favor  our  traffic  with 
them.  In  either  case  our  system  is  absurd.  The 
balance  of  trade  is  against  us,  and  in  favor  of  Eng 
land.  But  the  resolutions  can  only  aggravate  that 
evil,  for,  by  compelling  us  to  buy  dearer  and  sell 


100 


cheaper,  the  balance  will  be  turned  still  more  against 
our  country.  Neither  is  the  supply  from  France  less 
the  aliment  of  luxury  than  that  from  England.  There 
excess  of  credit  is  an  evil,  which  we  pretend  to  cure 
by  checking  the  natural  growth  of  our  own  capital, 
which  is  the  undoubted  tendency  of  restraining  trade  ; 
the  progress  of  the  remedy  is  thus  delayed.  If  we 
will  trade,  there  must  be  capital.  It  is  best  to  have 
it  of  our  own  ;  if  we  have  it  not,  we  must  depend  on 
credit.  Wealth  springs  from  the  profits  of  employ 
ment,  and  the  best  writers  on  the  subject  establish  it, 
that  employment  is  in  proportion  to  the  capital  that  is 
to  excite  and  reward  it.  To  strike  off  credit,  which 
is  the  substitute  for  capital,  if  it  were  possible  to  do 
it,  would  so  far  stop  employment.  Fortunately  it  is 
not  possible  :  the  activity  of  individual  industry  eludes 
the  misjudging  power  of  governments.  The  resolu 
tions  would  in  effect  increase  the  demand  for  credit, 
as  our  products  selling  for  less  in  a  new  market,  and 
our  imports  being  bought  dearer,  there  would  be  less 
money  and  more  need  of  it.  Necessity  would  pro 
duce  credit.  Where  the  laws  are  strict,  it  will  soon 
find  its  proper  level :  the  uses  of  credit  will  remain, 
and  the  evil  will  disappear. 

But  the  whole  theory  of  balances  of  trade,  of  help 
ing  it  by  restraint,  and  protecting  it  by  systems  of 
prohibition  and  restriction  against  foreign  nations,  as 
well  as  the  remedy  for  credit,  are  among  the  ex 
ploded  dogmas,  which  are  equally  refuted  by  the 
maxims  of  science  and  the  authority  of  time.  Many 
such  topics  have  been  advanced,  which  were  known 
to  exist  as  prejudices,  but  were  not  expected  as 
arguments.  It  seems  to  be  believed  that  the  liberty 


101 


of  commerce  is  of  some  value.  Although  there  are 
restrictions  on  one  side,  there  will  be  some  liberty 
left ;  counter  restrictions,  by  diminishing  that  liberty, 
are  in  their  nature  aggravations  and  not  remedies. 
We  complain  of  the  British  restrictions  as  of  a  mill 
stone  :  our  own  system  will  be  another,  so  that  our 
trade  may  hope  to  be  situated  between  the  upper  and 
the  nether  millstone. 

On  the  whole,  the  resolutions  contain  two  great 
principles :  to  control  trade  by  law,  instead  of  leaving 
it  to  the  better  management  of  the  merchant;  and 
the  principle  of  a  sumptuary  law.  To  play  the  tyrant 
in  the  counting-house  and  in  directing  the  private 
expenses  of  our  citizens  are  employments  equally 
unworthy  of  discussion. 

Besides  the  advantages  of  the  system,  we  have  been 
called  to  another  view  of  it,  which  seems  to  have  less 
connection  with  the  merits  of  the  discussion.  The 
acts  of  States  and  the  votes  of  public  bodies,  before 
the  Constitution  was  adopted,  and  the  votes  of  the 
House  since,  have  been  stated  as  grounds  for  our 
assent  to  this  measure  at  this  time.  To  help  our  own 
trade  to  repel  any  real  or  supposed  attack  upon  it 
cannot  fail  to  prepossess  the  mind  ;  accordingly  the 
first  feelings  of  every  man  yield  to  this  proposition. 
But  the  sober  judgment  on  the  tendency  and  reason 
ableness  of  the  intermeddling  of  government  often 
does,  and  probably  ought  still  oftener,  to  change  our 
impressions.  On  a  second  view  of  the  question,  the 
man  who  voted  formerly  for  restrictions  may  say, 
much  has  been  done  under  the  new  Constitution,  and 
the  good  effects  are  yet  making  progress.  The  neces 
sity  of  measures  of  counter  restriction  will  appear  to 


102 


him  much  less  urgent,  and  their  efficacy  in  the 
present  turbulent  state  of  Europe  infinitely  less  to 
be  relied  on.  Far  from  being  inconsistent  in  his 
conduct,  consistency  will  forbid  his  pressing  the  ex 
periment  of  his  principle  under  circumstances  which 
baffle  the  hopes  of  its  success.  But  if  so  much  stress 
is  laid  on  former  opinions  in  favor  of  this  measure, 
how  happens  it  that  there  is  so  little  on  that  which 
now  appears  against  it!  Not  one  merchant  has 
spoken  in  favor  of  it  in  this  body ;  not  one  navigating 
or  commercial  State  has  patronized  it. 

It  is  necessary  to  consider  the  dependence  of  the 
British  West  India  islands  on  our  supplies.  I  admit 
that  they  cannot  draw  them  so  well  and  so  cheap 
from  any  other  quarter,  but  this  is  not  the  point.  Are 
they  physically  dependent  I  Can  we  starve  them  ; 
and  may  we  reasonably  expect  thus  to  dictate  to 
Great  Britain  a  free  admission  of  our  vessels  into  her 
islands!  A  few  details  will  prove  the  negative.  Beef 
and  pork  sent  from  the  now  United  States  to  the 
British  West  Indies,  1773,  fourteen  thousand  nine 
hundred  and  ninty-three  barrels.  In  the  war  time, 
1780,  ditto  from  England,  seventeen  thousand  seven 
hundred  and  ninety-five  ;  at  the  end  of  the  war,  1783, 
sixteen  thousand  five  hundred  and  twenty-six.  Ire 
land  exported,  on  an  average  of  seven  years  prior  to 
1777,  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  barrels.  Salted 
fish  the  English  take  in  abundance,  and  prohibit  its 
importation  from  us.  Butter  and  cheese  from  Eng 
land  and  Ireland  are  but  lately  banished  even  from 
our  markets.  Exports  from  the  now  United  States, 
1773,  horses,  two  thousand  seven  hundred  and  sixty- 
eight  ;  cattle,  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  three ; 


108 


sheep  and  hogs,  five  thousand  three  hundred  and 
twenty.  Twenty-two  years  prior  to  1791,  were  ex 
ported  from  England  to  all  ports,  twenty-nine  thou 
sand  one  hundred  and  thirty-one  horses.  Ireland,  on 
an  average  of  seven  years  to  1777,  exported  four 
thousand  and  forty  live  stock,  exclusive  of  hogs.  The 
coast  of  Barbary,  the  Cape  de  Verds,  &c.,  supply 
sheep  and  cattle.  The  islands,  since  the  war,  have 
increased  their  domestic  supplies  to  a  great  degree. 

The  now  United  States  exported  about  one  hundred 
and  thirty  thousand  barrels  of  flour  in  1773  to  the 
West  Indies.  Ireland  by  grazing  less  could  supply 
wheat ;  England  herself  usually  exports  it ;  she  also 
imports  from  Archangel.  Sicily  and  the  Barbary 
States  furnish  wheat  in  abundance.  We  are  de 
ceived  when  we  fancy  we  can  starve  foreign  countries. 
France  is  reckoned  to  consume  grain  at  the  rate  of 
seven  bushels  to  each  soul.  Twenty-six  millions  of 
souls,  — the  quantity  one  hundred  and  eighty-two 
millions  of  bushels.  We  export,  to  speak  in  round 
numbers,  five  or  six  millions  of  bushels  to  all  the 
different  countries  which  we  supply  ;  a  trifle  this 
to  their  wants.  Frugality  is  a  greater  resource. 
Instead  of  seven  bushels,  perhaps  two  could  be 
saved  by  stinting  the  consumption  of  the  food  of 
cattle,  or  by  the  use  of  other  food.  Two  bushels  saved 
to  each  soul  is  fifty-two  millions  of  bushels,  a  quan 
tity  which  the  whole  trading  world,  perhaps,  could 
not  furnish.  Rice  is  said  to  be  prohibited  by  Spain 
and  Portugal  to  favor  their  own.  Brazil  could  supply 
their  rice  instead  of  ours. 

Lumber.  I  must  warn  you  of  the  danger  of  de 
spising  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia  too  much  as  rivals  in 


104 


the  West  India  supply,  especially  the  former.  The 
dependence  the  English  had  placed  on  them  some 
years  ago  failed,  partly  because  we  entered  into  com 
petition  with  them  on  very  superior  terms,  and  partly 
because  they  were  then  in  an  infant  state.  They  are 
now  supposed  to  have  considerably  more  than  doubled 
their  numbers  since  the  peace  ;  and  if,  instead  of 
having  us  for  competitors  for  the  supply  as  before, 
we  should  shut  ourselves  out  by  refusing  our  sup 
plies,  or  being  refused  entry  for  them,  those  two 
colonies  would  rise  from  the  ground;  at  least  we 
should  do  more  to  bring  it  about  than  the  English 
ministry  have  been  able  to  do.  In  1772,  six  hundred 
and  seventy  nine  vessels,  the  actual  tonnage  of  which 
was  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight  thousand,  were 
employed  in  the  West  India  trade  from  Great  Britain. 
They  were  supposed,  on  good  ground,  to  be  but  half 
freighted  to  the  islands  ;  they  might  carry  lumber,  and 
the  freight  supposed  to  be  deficient  would  be,  at  forty 
shillings  sterling  the  ton,  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
eight  thousand  pounds  sterling.  This  sum  would 
diminish  the  extra  charge  of  carrying  lumber  to  the 
islands.  But  is  lumber  to  be  had  ?  Yes  ;  in  Ger 
many,  and  from  the  Baltic.  It  is  even  cheaper  in 
Europe  than  our  own.  Besides  which,  the  hard 
woods  used  in  mills  are  abundant  in  the  islands. 

We  are  told  they  can  sell  their  rum  only  to  the 
United  States.  This  concerns  not  their  subsistence, 
but  their  profit.  Examine  it,  however.  In  1773,  the 
now  United  States  took  near  three  million  gallons  of 
rum.  The  remaining  British  Colonies,  Newfoundland 
and  the  African  coast,  have  a  considerable  demand 
for  this  article.  The  demand  of  Ireland  is  very  much 


105 


on  the  increase.  It  was  in  1763  five  hundred  and 
thirty  thousand  gallons  ;  1770,  one  million  five  hun 
dred  and  fifty-eight  thousand  gallons;  1778,  one 
million  seven  hundred  and  twenty-nine  thousand 
gallons. 

Thus  we  see  a  total  stoppage  of  the  West  India 
trade  would  not  starve  the  islanders.  It  would  affect 
us  deeply  :  we  should  lose  the  sale  of  our  products, 
and,  of  course,  not  gain  the  carriage  in  our  own 
vessels ;  the  object  of  the  contest  would  be  no  nearer 
our  reach  than  before.  Instead,  however,  of  a  total 
stoppage  of  the  intercourse,  it  might  happen  that, 
each  nation  prohibiting  the  vessels  of  the  other,  some 
third  nation  would  carry  on  the  traffic  in  its  own  bot 
toms.  While  this  measure  would  disarm  our  system, 
it  would  make  it  recoil  upon  ourselves.  It  would,  in 
effect,  operate  chiefly  to  obstruct  the  sale  of  our 
products.  If  they  should  remain  unsold,  it  would  be 
so  much  dead  loss ;  or  if  the  effect  should  be  to  raise 
the  price  on  the  consumers,  it  would  either  lessen  the 
consumption  or  raise  up  rivals  in  the  supply.  The 
contest,  as  it  respects  the  West  India  trade,  is  in 
every  respect  against  us.  To  embarrass  the  supply 
from  the  United  States,  supposing  the  worst  as  it 
regards  the  planters,  can  do  no  more  than  enhance 
the  price  of  sugar,  coffee,  and  other  products.  The 
French  islands  are  now  in  ruins,  and  the  English 
planters  have  an  increased  price  and  double  demand 
in  consequence.  While  Great  Britain  confined  the 
colony  trade  to  herself,  she  gave  to  the  colonists  in 
return  a  monopoly  in  her  consumption  of  West  India 
articles.  The  extra  expense,  arising  from  the  severest 
operation  of  our  system,  is  already  provided  against 

14 


106 


twofold.  Like  other  charges  on  the  products  of  labor 
and  capital,  the  burden  will  fall  on  the  consumer. 
The  luxurious  and  opulent  consumer  in  Europe  will 
not  regard,  and  perhaps  will  not  know,  the  increase 
of  price  nor  the  cause  of  it.  The  new  settler,  who 
clears  his  land  and  sells  the  lumber,  will  feel  any  con 
vulsion  in  the  market  more  sensibly,  without  being 
able  to  sustain  it  at  all.  It  is  a  contest  of  wealth 
against  want  of  self-denial,  between  luxury  and  daily 
subsistence,  that  we  provoke  with  so  much  confidence 
of  success.  A  man  of  experience  in  the  West  India 
trade  will  see  this  contrast  more  strongly  than  it  is 
possible  to  represent  it. 

One  of  the  excellences  for  which  the  measure  is 
recommended  is  that  it  will  affect  our  imports.  What 
is  offered  as  an  argument  is  really  an  objection.  Who 
will  supply  our  wants  ]  Our  own  manufactures  are 
growing,  and  it  is  a  subject  of  great  satisfaction  that 
they  are.  But  it  would  be  wrong  to  overrate  their 
capacity  to  clothe  us.  The  same  number  of  inhabi 
tants  require  more  and  more,  because  wealth  increases. 
Add  to  this  the  rapid  growth  of  our  numbers,  and 
perhaps  it  will  be  correct  to  estimate  the  progress  of 
manufactures  as  only  keeping  pace  with  that  of  our 
increasing  consumption  and  population.  It  follows 
that  we  shall  continue  to  demand  in  future  to  the 
amount  of  our  present  importation.  It  is  not  intended 
by  the  resolutions  that  we  shall  import  from  England. 
Holland  and  the  north  of  Europe  do  not  furnish  a 
sufficient  variety  or  sufficient  quantity  for  our  con 
sumption.  It  is  in  vain  to  look  to  Spain,  Portugal, 
and  the  Italian  States.  We  are  expected  to  depend 
principally  upon  France  ;  it  is  impossible  to  examine 


107 


the  ground  of  this  dependence  without  adverting  to 
the  present  situation  of  that  country.     It  is  a  subject 
upon  which  I  practise  no  disguise  ;  but  I  do  not  think 
it  proper  to  introduce  the  politics  of  France  into  this 
discussion.      If  others  can  find  in  the  scenes  that  pass 
there,  or  in  the  principles  and  agents  that  direct  them, 
proper  subjects  for  amiable  names,  and  sources  of  joy 
and  hope  in  the  prospect,  I  have  nothing  to  say  to  it ; 
it  is  an  amusement  which  it  is  not  my  intention  either 
to  disturb  or  to  partake  of.    I  turn  from  these  horrors 
to  examine   the   condition   of  France   in   respect    to 
manufacturing,  capital,  and  industry.       In  this  point 
of  view,    whatever   political    improvements   may    be 
hoped  for,  it  cannot  escape  observation  that  it  pre 
sents    only    a    wide    field    of    waste    and    desolation. 
Capital,  which    used   to    be   food    for    manufactures, 
is    become    their   fuel.       What    once    nourished    in 
dustry  now  lights  the  fires  of  civil  war,  and  quickens 
the  progress  of  destruction.      France  is  like  a  ship 
with  a  fine  cargo  burning  to  the  water's  edge  ;    she 
may  be  built  upon  anew,  and  freighted  with  another 
cargo,  and  it  will  be  time  enough,  when  that  shall  be, 
to  depend  on  a  part  of  it  for  our  supply  ;  at  present,  and 
for  many  years,  she  will  not  be  so  much  a  furnisher 
as  a  consumer.       It  is  therefore  obvious  that  we  shall 
import  our  supplies  either  directly  or  indirectly  from 
Great  Britain.      Any  obstruction  to  the  importation 
will   raise  the   price  which  we,  who  consume,  must 
bear. 

That  part  of  the  argument  which  rests  on  the  sup 
posed  distress  of  the  British  manufacturers,  in  con 
sequence  of  the  loss  of  our  market,  is  in  every  view 
unfounded.  They  would  not  lose  the  market,  in  fact ; 


108 


and  if  they  did,  we  prodigiously  exaggerate  the  im 
portance  of  our  consumption  to  the  British  workmen. 
Important  it  doubtless  is,  but  a  little  attention  will 
expose  the  extreme  folly  of  the  opinion  that  they 
would  be  brought  to  our  feet  by  a  trial  of  our  self- 
denying  spirit.  England  now  supplants  France  in 
the  important  Levant  trade,  in  the  supply  of  manu 
factured  goods  to  the  East,  and  in  a  great  measure  to 
the  West  Indies,  to  Spain,  Portugal,  and  their  depen 
dencies.  Her  trade  with  Russia  has  of  late  vastly 
increased,  and  she  is  treating  for  a  trade  with  China ; 
so  that  the  new  demands  of  English  manufactures, 
consequent  upon  the  depression  of  France  as  a  rival, 
have  amounted  to  much  more  than  the  whole  Ameri 
can  importation,  which  is  not  three  millions. 

The  ill  effect  of  a  system  of  restriction  and  prohibi 
tion  in  the  West  Indies  has  been  noticed  already. 
The  privileges  allowed  to  our  exports  to  England 
may  be  withdrawn,  and  prohibitory  or  high  duties 
imposed. 

The  system  before  us  is  a  mischief  that  goes  to  the 
root  of  our  prosperity.  The  merchants  will  suffer  by 
the  schemes  and  projects  of  a  new  theory.  Great 
numbers  were  ruined  by  the  convulsions  of  1775. 
They  are  an  order  of  citizens  deserving  better  of 
government  than  to  be  involved  in  new  confusions. 
It  is  wrong  to  make  our  trade  wage  war  for  our 
politics.  It  is  now  scarcely  said  that  it  is  a  thing  to 
be  sought  for,  but  a  weapon  to  fight  with.  To  gain 
our  approbation  to  the  system,  we  are  told  it  is  to  be 
gradually  established.  In  that  case,  it  will  be  un 
availing.  It  should  be  begun  with  in  all  its  strength, 
if  we  think  of  starving  the  islands.  Drive  them  sud- 


109 


denly  and  by  surprise  to  extremity,  if  you  would 
dictate  terms ;  but  they  will  prepare  against  a  long- 
expected  failure  of  our  supplies. 

Our  nation  will  be  tired  of  suffering  loss  and 
embarrassment  for  the  French.  The  struggle,  so 
painful  to  ourselves,  so  ineffectual  against  England, 
will  be  renounced,  and  we  shall  sit  down  with  shame 
and  loss,  with  disappointed  passions  and  aggravated 
complaints.  War,  which  would  then  suit  our  feel 
ings,  would  not  suit  our  weakness.  We  might 
perhaps  find  some  European  power  willing  to  make 
war  on  England,  and  we  might  be  permitted  by  a 
strict  alliance  to  partake  the  misery  and  the  depend 
ence  of  being  a  subaltern  in  the  quarrel.  The 
happiness  of  this  situation  seems  to  be  in  view, 
when  the  system  before  us  is  avowed  to  be  the  in 
strument  of  avenging  our  political  resentments.  Those 
who  affect  to  dread  foreign  influence  will  do  well  to 
avoid  a  partnership  in  European  jealousies  and  rival- 
ships.  Courting  the  friendship  of  the  one  and  pro 
voking  the  hatred  of  the  other  is  dangerous  to  our 
real  independence  ;  for  it  would  compel  America  to 
throw  herself  into  the  arms  of  the  one  for  protec 
tion  against  the  other.  Then  foreign  influence,  per 
nicious  as  it  is,  would  be  sought  for;  and  though  it 
should  be  shunned,  it  could  not  be  resisted.  The 
connections  of  trade  form  ties  between  individuals, 
and  produce  little  control  over  government.  They 
are  the  ties  of  peace,  and  are  neither  corrupt  nor 
corrupting. 

We  have  happily  escaped  from  a  state  of  the  most 
imminent  danger  to  our  peace  :  a  false  step  would 
lose  all  the  security  for  its  continuance,  which  we 


110 


owe  at  this  moment  to  the  conduct  of  the  President. 
What  is  to  save  us  from  war  1  Not  our  own  power, 
which  inspires  no  terror  ;  not  the  gentle  and  forbear 
ing  spirit  of  the  powers  of  Europe  at  this  crisis ;  not 
the  weakness  of  England ;  not  her  affection  for  this 
country,  if  we  believe  the  assurances  of  gentlemen  on 
the  other  side.  What  is  it  then  I  It  is  the  interest 
of  Great  Britain  to  have  America  for  a  customer, 
rather  than  an  enemy  ;  and  it  is  precisely  that  inter 
est  which  gentlemen  are  so  eager  to  take  away  and 
to  transfer  to  France.  And  what  is  stranger  still, 
they  say  they  rely  on  that  operation  as  a  means  of 
producing  peace  with  the  Indians  and  Algerines.  The 
wounds  inflicted  on  Great  Britain  by  our  enmity  are 
expected  to  excite  her  to  supplicate  our  friendship, 
and  to  appease  us  by  soothing  the  animosity  of  our 
enemies.  What  is  to  produce  effects  so  mystical,  so 
opposite  to  nature,  so  much  exceeding  the  efficacy  of 
their  pretended  causes  I  This  wonder-working  paper 
on  the  table  is  the  weapon  of  terror  and  destruction  ; 
like  the  writing  on  Belshazzar's  wall,  it  is  to  strike 
parliaments  and  nations  with  dismay ;  it  is  to  be 
stronger  than  fleets  against  pirates,  or  than  armies 
against  Indians.  After  the  examination  it  has  under 
gone,  credulity  itself  will  laugh  at  these  pretensions. 

We  pretend  to  expect,  not  by  the  force  of  our 
restrictions,  but  by  the  mere  show  of  our  spirit,  to 
level  all  the  fences  that  have  guarded  for  ages  the 
monopoly  of  the  colony  trade.  The  repeal  of  the 
navigation  act  of  England,  which  is  cherished  as 
the  palladium  of  her  safety,  which  time  has  rendered 
venerable  and  prosperity  endeared  to  her  people,  is 
to  be  extorted  from  her  fears  of  a  weaker  nation.  It 


Ill 


is  not  to  be  yielded  freely,  but  violently  torn  from 
her ;  and  yet  the  idea  of  a  struggle  to  prevent  indig 
nity  and  loss  is  considered  as  a  chimera  too  ridiculous 
for  sober  refutation.  She  will  not  dare,  say  they,  to 
resent  it ;  and  gentlemen  have  pledged  themselves 
for  the  success  of  the  attempt :  what  is  treated  as  a 
phantom  is  vouched  by  fact.  Her  navigation  act  is 
known  to  have  caused  an  immediate  contest  with  the 
Dutch,  and  four  desperate  sea  fights  ensued  in  conse 
quence  the  very  year  of  its  passage. 

How  far  it  is  an  act  of  aggression,  for  a  neutral 
nation  to  assist  the  supplies  of  one  neighbor  and  to 
annoy  and  distress  another,  at  the  crisis  of  a  contest 
between  the  two  which  strains  their  strength  to  the 
utmost,  is  a  question  which  we  might  not  agree  in 
deciding ;  but  the  tendency  of  such  unseasonable  par 
tiality  to  exasperate  the  spirit  of  hostility  against  the 
intruder  cannot  be  doubted.  The  language  of  the 
French  government  would  not  soothe  this  spirit.  It 
proposes,  on  the  sole  condition  of  a  political  connec 
tion,  to  extend  to  us  a  part  of  their  West  India  com 
merce.  The  coincidence  of  our  measures  with  their 
invitation,  however  singular,  needs  no  comment.  Of 
all  men  those  are  least  consistent  who  believe  in  the 
efficacy  of  the  regulations,  and  yet  affect  to  ridicule 
their  hostile  tendency.  In  the  commercial  conflict, 
say  they,  we  shall  surely  prevail  and  effectually 
humble  Great  Britain. 

In  open  war  we  are  the  weaker,  and  shall  be 
brought  into  danger,  if  not  to  ruin.  It  depends, 
therefore,  according  to  their  own  reasoning,  on  Great 
Britain  herself  whether  she  will  persist  in  a  struggle 
which  will  disgrace  and  weaken  her,  or  turn  it  into  a 


112 

war  which  will  throw  the  shame  and  ruin  upon  her 
antagonist.  The  topics  which  furnish  arguments  to 
show  the  danger  to  our  peace  from  the  resolutions 
are  too  fruitful  to  be  exhausted.  But,  without  pur 
suing  them  further,  the  experience  of  mankind  has 
shown  that  commercial  rivalships,  which  spring  from 
mutual  efforts  for  monopoly,  have  kindled  more  wars, 
and  wasted  the  earth  more,  than  the  spirit  of  con 
quest. 

I  hope  we  shall  show  by  our  vote  that  we  deem  it 
better  policy  to  feed  nations  than  to  starve  them ;  and 
that  we  shall  never  be  so  unwise  as  to  put  our  good 
customers  into  a  situation  to  be  forced  to  make  every 
exertion  to  do  without  us.  By  cherishing  the  arts  of 
peace  we  shall  acquire,  and  we  are  actually  acquir 
ing,  the  strength  and  resources  for  a  war.  Instead  of 
seeking  treaties,  we  ought  to  shun  them ;  for  the 
later  they  shall  be  formed,  the  better  will  be  the 
terms  ;  we  shall  have  more  to  give  and  more  to  with 
hold.  We  have  not  yet  taken  our  proper  rank,  nor 
acquired  that  consideration  which  will  not  be  refused 
us  if  we  persist  in  prudent  and  pacific  counsels,  if 
we  give  time  for  our  strength  to  mature  itself! 
1  Though  America  is  rising  with  a  giant's  strength, 
its  bones  are  yet  but  cartilages.  By  delaying  the 
beginning  of  a  conflict,  we  insure  the  victory. 

By  voting  out  the  resolutions,  we  shall  show  to  our 
own  citizens  and  foreign  nations  that  our  prudence 
has  prevailed  over  our  prejudices  —  that  we  prefer 
our  interests  to  our  resentments.  Let  us  assert  a 
genuine  independence  of  spirit ;  we  shall  be  false 
to  our  duty  and  feelings  as  Americans  if  we  basely 
descend  to  a  servile  dependence  on  France  or  Great 
Britain. 


VI. 


Resolved,  That  it  is  expedient  to  pass  the  laws  necessary  to  carry  into 
effect  the  treaty  lately  concluded  between  the  United  States  and  the  King  of 

Great  Britain. 

Delivered  April  28,  1796. 

THE  treaty  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  which 
was  negotiated  by  Mr.  Jay,  in  1794,  gave  rise,  in  this  country,  to 
very  eager  and  heated  party  contests.  It  encountered  fierce  oppo 
sition  from  the  Democratic  party,  with  Jefferson  at  their  head, 
and  was  supported  by  the  Federalists,  who  had  Washington  and 
Hamilton  for  their  leaders.  The  partisans  of  France  were  bitter 
in  their  denunciation  of  any  alliance  with  England,  and  declared 
the  treaty  "  no  better  than  a  pusillanimous  surrender  of  American 
rights,  and  a  shameful  breach  of  obligations  to  France."  *  Public 
feeling,  over  the  whole  country,  was  roused  to  the  highest  pitch. 
Town-meetings  were  called  in  all  the  principal  cities  of  the  Union,, 
excited  discussions  held,  and  inflammatory  addresses  issued  to  the 
people.  Riots  occurred  in  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and 
other  places.  In  every  city  and  town  in  the  Union,  the  party  lines 
were  sharply  and  closely  drawn,  as  they  had  never  been  before. 
The  excitement  in  Congress  was  similar  to  that  among  the  people ; 
even  more  intense,  perhaps,  on  account  of  its  final  responsibility, 
as  well  as  the  even  division  of  party  strength.  In  the  Senate,  the 
treaty  was  ratified  by  exactly  the  required  majority  ;  but  the  tem 
per  of  the  House  was,  apparently,  more  decidedly  opposed  to  it.  - 

*  Ilildreth's  History  of  the  United  States,  Second  Series,  Vol.  1,  page  547. 

15 


114 


The  treaty  had  been  ratified  by  the  Senate  in  June,  and  signed 
by  the  President  in  August,  1795  ;  but  there  was  a  hope,  among 
the  leaders  of  the  opposition,  that  it  could  be  substantially  defeated 
in  the  House,  by  the  refusal  of  that  body  to  carry  its  provisions 
into  effect.  And  it  was  not  without  strong  probability  of  success 
that  they  so  calculated  their  power  in  the  latter  body,  for  the  oppo 
sition  counted,  apparently,  a  clear  majority  of  ten.  When,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  session  of  the  Fourth  Congress,  March,  1796,  the 
treaty  was  laid  before  the  House  for  their  consideration,  it  was  at 
once  attacked  by  the  opposition.  Madison  was  their  leader,  and 
he  made  an  able  speech  against  it. 

While  the  debate  on  the  treaty  continued,  Mr.  Ames  was  a 
severe  sufferer  from  illness,  and  had  been  prohibited  from  taking 
any  part  iu  the  proceedings  of  the  House,  and  even  from  being  at 
his  post.  How  irksome  this  was  to  him,  at  such  a  time,  is  seen 
from  his  letters. 

"  I  sit  now  in  the  House,  and  that  I  may  not  lose  my  temper 
and  my  spirits,  I  shut  my  ears  against  the  treaty,  and  divert  my 
attention  by  writing  to  you. 

"  Never  was  a  time  when  I  so  much  desired  the  full  use  of  my 
faculties,  and  it  is  the  very  moment  when  I  am  prohibited  even 
attention.  To  be  silent,  neutral,  useless,  is  a  situation  not  to  be 
envied.  ...  It  is  a  new  post  for  me  to  be  in.  I  am  not  a  sentry  ; 
not  in  the  ranks,  not  in  the  staff.  I  am  thrown  into  the  wagon  as 
a  part  of  the  baggage.  I  am  like  an  old  gun,  that  is  spiked,  or  the 
trunnions  knocked  off,  and  yet  am  carted  off,  not  for  the  worth  of 
the  old  iron,  but  to  balk  the  enemy  of  a  trophy.  My  political  life 
is  ended,  and  I  am  the  survivor  of  myself,  or  rather  a  troubled 
ghost  of  a  politician,  that  am  condemned  to  haunt  the  field  where 
he  fell."  * 

But  as  the  debate  progressed,  his  feelings  and  his  convictions 
became  too  much  engaged  to  endure  the  bonds  of  silence,  which 
had  been  laid  upon  him,  and  found  utterance  in  the  eloquent  speech 
that  is  here  given.  "  Rising  from  his  seat,  pale,  feeble,  hardly 
able  to  stand  or  to  speak,  but  warming  with  the  subject,  he  deliv- 

*  Life  and  Works  of  Fisher  Ames,  1854.    Vol.  1,  pages  187  and  188. 


115 


ered  a  speech,  which  for  comprehensive  knowledge  of  human 
nature,  and  of  the  springs  of  political  action,  for  caustic  ridicule, 
keen  argument,  and  pathetic  eloquence,  even  in  the  imperfect 
shape  in  which  we  possess  it,  has  very  seldom  been  equalled  on 
that  or  any  other  floor."  * 

How  great  was  the  impression  produced  is  best  seen  in  the 
writings  of  the  time.  John  Adams  describes  it  in  one  of  his 
letters  as  follows:  "Judge  Iredell  and  I  happened  to  sit  together. 
Our  feelings  beat  in  unison.  '  My  God  !  how  great  he  is,'  says 
Iredell ;  l  how  great  he  has  been  ! '  '  Noble  ! '  said  I.  After 
some  time  Iredell  breaks  out,  '  Bless  my  stars  !  I  never  heard  any 
thing  so  great  since  I  was  born.'  '  Divine  ! '  said  I ;  and  thus  we 
went  on  with  our  interjections,  not  to  say  tears,  to  the  end.  Tears 
enough  were  shed.  Not  a  dry  eye  in  the  House,  I  believe,  except 
some  of  the  jackasses  who  had  occasioned  the  oratory.  Ttiese 
attempted  to  laugh,  but  their  visages  '  grinned  horribly  ghastly 
smiles.'  They  smiled  like  Toulon's  son-in-law,  when  they  made 
him  kiss  his  father's  dead  and  bleeding  head.  The  situation  of 
the  man  excited  compassion,  and  interested  all  hearts  in  his  favor. 
The  ladies  wished  his  soul  had  a  better  body."  f 

A  writer  in  the  "American  Review  "  (  Philadelphia,  January,  1811) 
says :  "  I  have  conversed  with  several  persons  who  were  present 
when  this  celebrated  oration,  supposed  by  many  to  be  the  most 
eloquent  that  has  ever  been  heard  in  our  Congress,  was  delivered. 
They  state  the  effects  which  it  produced  to  have  been  so  striking 
as  to  rival  those  ascribed  to  ancient  eloquence.  He  was  then,  in 
appearance,  rapidly  sinking  to  the  tomb  ;  a  circumstance  of  which, 
as  is  manifest  from  the  conclusion  of  his  speech,  he  was  perfectly 
sensible.  His  aspect  was  calculated  to  excite  the  liveliest  interest, 
and  the  whole  scene  to  make  the  deepest  impression.  The  annun 
ciation  of  his  intention  to  speak,  together  with  the  importance  of 
the  subject,  so  deeply  interesting  to  every  American,  drew  an 
immense  audience.  The  large  hall  in  which  Congress  assembled 
was  crowded  with  a  most  brilliant  assembly  of  both  sexes.  When 

*  Hildreth's  History  of  the  United  States,  Second  Series,  Vol.  1,  page  605. 
t  Letters  of  John  Adams.     Fages  226,  227. 


116 


he  arose,  all  was  hushed  into  the  most  profound  attention,  and 
every  eye  was  fixed  upon  him.  In  a  low  and  solemn,  yet  distinct 
voice,  he  pronounced  an  exordium,  peculiarly  adapted  to  his 
situation. 

"  He  then  went  on,  in  a  forcible,  argumentative,  and  impassioned 
strain,  to  answer  and  refute  all  the  objections  which  had  been 
urged  against  the  resolution  proposed  for  carrying  the  treaty  into 
effect.  When  he  came  to  speak  of  the  consequences  which  would 
flow  from  a  rejection  of  the  resolution,  his  whole  audience  was 
electrified.  His  voice  summoned  their  imaginations  to  a  scene  of 
horror,  which  was  described  with  a  pathos  and  energy  never  ex 
celled.  This,  together  with  the  solemnity  of  his  peroration, 
produced  so  lively  a  sensation  in  the  House,  that  one  of  the  lead 
ing  members  of  the  opposition  proposed  to  defer  taking  the 
question  until  the  minds  of  the  members  had  time  to  cool,  and 
(as  Pitt  said  after  Sheridan  had  delivered  his  famous  speech  on  the 
question  of  arraigning  Warren  Hastings)  until  they  should  be  able 
to  distinguish  *  the  blaze  of  eloquence  from  the  light  of  truth.'  In 
this  instance,  however,  though  not  in  that  of  Sheridan,  the  blaze 
of  eloquence  was  employed  to  diffuse,  not  to  conceal  the  light  of 
truth.  His  oratory  on  this  occasion  was  of  the  highest  order,  — 
bold,  lofty,  and  impressive." 

"  The  next  day,  three  more  speeches  were  made  for  the  treaty, 
one  by  Dayton,  the  Speaker ;  but  no  one  attempted  to  answer 
Ames."  * 

On  the  30th  of  April,  the  resolution  which  stands  at  the  head  of 
this  speech  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  fifty-one  to  forty-eight. 

I  ENTERTAIN  the  hope,  perhaps  a  rash  one,  that  my 
strength  will  hold  me  out  to  speak  a  few  minutes. 

In  my  judgment,  a  right  decision  will  depend  more 
on  the  temper  and  manner  with  which  we  may  pre 
vail  upon  ourselves  to  contemplate  the  subject  than 
upon  the  development  of  any  profound  political  prin- 

*  Hildreth's  History  of  the  United  States,  Second  Series,  Vol.  1,  page  615. 


117 


ciples,  or  any  remarkable  skill  in  the  application  of 
them.  If  we  could  succeed  to  neutralize  our  inclina 
tions,  we  should  find  less  difficulty  than  we  have  to 
apprehend  in  surmounting  all  our  objections. 

The  suggestion  a  few  days  ago,  that  the  House 
manifested  symptoms  of  heat  and  irritation,  was  made 
and  retorted  as  if  the  charge  ought  to  create  surprise, 
and  would  convey  reproach.  Let  us  be  more  just  to 
ourselves  and  to  the  occasion.  Let  us  not  affect  to 
deny  the  existence  and  the  intrusion  of  some  portion 
of  prejudice  and  feeling  into  the  debate,  when,  from 
the  very  structure  of  our  nature,  we  ought  to  antici 
pate  the  circumstance  as  a  probability,  and  when  we 
are  admonished  by  the  evidence  of  our  senses  that  it 
is  a  fact.  How  can  we  make  professions  for  ourselves, 
and  offer  exhortations  to  the  House,  that  no  influence 
should  be  felt  but  that  of  duty,  and  no  guide  respected 
but  that  of  the  understanding,  while  the  peal  to  rally 
every  passion  of  man  is  continually  ringing  in  our 
ears.  Our  understandings  have  been  addressed,  it  is 
true,  and  with  ability  and  effect ;  but,  I  demand,  has 
any  corner  of  the  heart  been  left  unexplored  1  It  has 
been  ransacked  to  find  auxiliary  arguments ;  and, 
when  that  attempt  failed,  to  awaken  the  sensibility, 
that  would  require  none.  Every  prejudice  and  feeling 
has  been  summoned  to  listen  to  some  peculiar  style  of 
address ;  and  yet  we  seem  to  believe,  and  to  consider 
a  doubt  as  an  affront,  that  we  are  strangers  to  any 
influence  but  that  of  unbiassed  reason. 

It  would  be  strange  that  a  subject  which  has  roused 
in  turn  all  the  passions  of  the  country  should  be  dis 
cussed  without  the  interference  of  any  of  our  own. 
We  are  men,  and  therefore  not  exempt  from  those 


118 


passions:  as  citizens  and  representatives,  we  feel  the 
interest  that  must  excite  them.  The  hazard  of  great 
interests  cannot  fail  to  agitate  strong  passions  :  we  are 
not  disinterested;  it  is  impossible  we  should  be  dis 
passionate.  The  warmth  of  such  feelings  may  becloud 
the  judgment,  and  for  a  time  pervert  the  understand 
ing.  But  the  public  sensibility,  and  our  own,  has 
sharpened  the  spirit  of  inquiry,  and  given  an  anima 
tion  to  the  debate.  The  public  attention  has  been 
quickened  to  mark  the  progress  of  the  discussion  ;  and 
its  judgment,  often  hasty  and  erroneous  on  first  impres 
sions,  has  become  solid  and  enlightened  at  last.  Our 
result  will,  I  hope,  on  that  account,  be  the  safer  and 
more  mature,  as  well  as  more  accordant  with  that  of 
the  nation.  The  only  constant  agents  in  political 
affairs  are  the  passions  of  men.  Shall  we  complain 
of  our  nature ;  shall  we  say  that  man  ought  to  have 
been  made  other  wise]  It  is  right  already,  because  He 
from  whom  we  derive  our  nature  ordained  it  so  ;  and 
because,  thus  made  and  thus  acting,  the  cause  of  truth 
and  the  public  good  is  the  more  surely  promoted. 

But  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  produce  an  influ 
ence  of  a  nature  more  stubborn,  and  more  unfriendly 
to  truth.  It  is  very  unfairly  pretended  that  the  con 
stitutional  right  of  this  House  is  at  stake,  and  to  be 
asserted  and  preserved  only  by  a  vote  in  the  negative. 
We  hear  it  said  that  this  is  a  struggle  for  liberty,  a 
manly  resistance  against  the  design  to  nullify  this 
assembly,  and  to  make  it  a  cipher  in  the  government ; 
that  the  President  and  Senate,  the  numerous  meetings 
in  the  cities,  and  the  influence  of  the  general  alarm  of 
the  country,  are  the  agents  and  instruments  of  a 
scheme  of  coercion  and  terror,  to  force  the  treaty 


119 

down  our  throats,  though  we  loathe  it,  and  in  spite  of 
the  clearest  convictions  of  duty  and  conscience. 

It  is  necessary  to  pause  here,  and  inquire  whether 
suggestions  of  this  kind  be  not  unfair  in  their  very 
texture  and  fabric,  and  pernicious  in  all  their  influ 
ences.  They  oppose  an  obstacle  in  the  path  of 
inquiry,  not  simply  discouraging,  but  absolutely  insur 
mountable.  They  will  not  yield  to  argument ;  for,  as 
they  were  not  reasoned  up,  they  cannot  be  reasoned 
down.  They  are  higher  than  a  Chinese  wall  in  truth's 
way,  and  built  of  materials  that  are  indestructible. 
While  this  remains,  it  is  vain  to  say  to  this  mountain, 
Be  thou  cast  into  the  sea.  For  I  ask  of  the  men  of 
knowledge  of  the  world,  whether  they  would  not 
hold  him  for  a  blockhead  that  should  hope  to  pre 
vail  in  an  argument  whose  scope  and  object  it  is  to 
mortify  the  self-love  of  the  expected  proselyte?  I 
ask  further,  when  such  attempts  have  been  made, 
have  they  not  failed  of  success  1  The  indignant  heart 
repels  a  conviction  that  is  believed  to  debase  it. 

The  .self-love  of  an  individual  is  not  warmer  in  its 
sense,  nor  more  constant  in  its  action,  than  what  is 
called  in  French  T esprit  du  corps,  or  the  self-love  of  an 
assembly  ;  that  jealous  affection  which  a  body  of  men 
is  always  found  to  bear  towards  its  own  prerogatives 
and  power.  I  will  not  condemn  this  passion.  Why 
should  we  urge  an  unmeaning  censure,  or  yield  to 
groundless  fears  that  truth  and  duty  will  be  aban 
doned,  because  men  in  a  public  assembly  are  still 
men,  and  feel  that  esprit  du  corps  which  is  one  of  the 
laws  of  their  nature  I  Still  less  should  we  despond  or 
complain,  if  we  reflect  that  this  very  spirit  is  a  guar 
dian  instinct  that  watches  over  the  life  of  this  assem- 


120 


bly.  It  cherishes  the  principle  of  self-preservation; 
and  without  its  existence,  and  its  existence  with  all 
the  strength  we  see  it  possess,  the  privileges  of  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  and,  mediately,  the 
liberty  of  the  people,  would  not  be  guarded,  as  they 
are,  with  a  vigilance  that  never  sleeps,  and  an  unre- 
laxing  constancy  and  courage. 

If  the  consequences  most  unfairly  attributed  to  the 
vote  in  the  affirmative  were  not  chimerical,  —  and 
worse,  for  they  are  deceptive,  —  I  should  think  it  a  re 
proach  to  be  found  even  moderate  in  my  zeal  to  assert 
the  constitutional  powers  of  this  assembly  ;  and  when 
ever  they  shall  be  in  real  danger,  the  present  occasion 
affords  proof  that  there  will  be  no  want  of  advocates 
and  champions. 

Indeed,  so  prompt  are  these  feelings,  and,  when 
once  roused,  so  difficult  to  pacify,  that,  if  we  could 
prove  the  alarm  was  groundless,  the  prejudice  against 
the  appropriations  may  remain  on  the  mind,  and  it 
may  even  pass  for  an  act  of  prudence  and  duty  to  nega 
tive  a  measure  which  was  lately  believed  by  ourselves, 
and  may  hereafter  be  misconceived  by  others,  to  en 
croach  upon  the  powers  of  the  House.  Principles 
that  bear  a  remote  affinity  with  usurpation  on  those 
powers  will  be  rejected,  not  merely  as  errors,  but  as 
wrongs.  Our  sensibility  will  shrink  from  a  post  where 
it  is  possible  it  may  be  wounded,  and  be  inflamed  by 
the  slightest  suspicion  of  an  assault. 

While  these  prepossessions  remain,  all  argument  is 
useless :  it  may  be  heard  with  the  ceremony  of  atten 
tion,  and  lavish  its  own  resources  and  the  patience  it 
wearies  to  no  manner  of  purpose.  The  ears  may  be 
open,  but  the  mind  will  remain  locked  up,  and  every 


121 


pass  to  the  understanding  guarded.  Unless  therefore 
this  jealous  and  repulsive  fear  for  the  rights  of  the 
House  can  be  allayed,  I  will  not  ask  a  hearing. 

I  cannot  press  this  topic  too  far ;  I  cannot  address 
myself  with  too  much  emphasis  to  the  magnanimity 
and  candor  of  those  who  sit  here,  to  suspect  their 
own  feelings,  and,  while  they  do,  to  examine  the 
grounds  of  their  alarm.  I  repeat  it,  we  must  conquer 
our  persuasion  that  this  body  has  an  interest  in  one 
side  of  the  question  more  than  the  other,  before  we 
attempt  to  surmount  our  objections.  On  most  subjects, 
and  solemn  ones  too,  perhaps  in  the  most  solemn  of 
all,  we  form  our  creed  more  from  inclination  than 
evidence. 

Let  me  expostulate  with  gentlemen  to  admit,  if  it 
be  only  by  way  of  supposition,  and  for  a  moment,  that 
it  is  barely  possible  they  have  yielded  too  suddenly  to 
their  alarms  for  the  powers  of  this  House ;  that  the 
addresses,  which  have  been  made  with  such  variety  of 
forms,  and  with  so  great  dexterity  in  some  of  them,  to 
all  that  is  prejudice  and  passion  in  the  heart,  are  either 
the  effects  or  the  instruments  of  artifice  and  deception, 
and  then  let  them  see  the  subject  once  more  in  its 
singleness  and  simplicity. 

It  will  be  impossible,  on  taking  a  fair  review  of  the 
subject,  to  justify  the  passionate  appeals  that  have 
been  made  to  us,  to  struggle  for  our  liberties  and 
rights,  and  the  solemn  exhortations  to  reject  the  prop 
osition,  said  to  be  concealed  in  that  on  your  table,  to 
surrender  them  for  ever.  In  spite  of  this  mock  solem 
nity,  I  demand,  if  the  House  will  not  concur  in  the 
measure  to  execute  the  treaty,  what  other  course  shall 

1C 


122 


we  take  1     How  many  ways  of  proceeding  lie  open 
before  us  ? 

In  the  nature  of  things,  there  are  but  three :  we 
are  either  to  make  the  treaty,  to  observe  it,  or  break 
it.  It  would  be  absurd  to  say,  we  will  do  neither.  If 
I  may  repeat  a  phrase  already  so  much  abused,  we 
are  under  coercion  to  do  one  of  them  ;  and  we  have 
no  power,  by  the  exercise  of  our  discretion,  to  prevent 
the  consequences  of  a  choice. 

By  refusing  to  act,  we  choose :  the  treaty  will  be 
broken  and  fall  to  the  ground.  Where  is  the  fitness, 
then,  of  replying  to  those  who  urge  upon  the  House 
the  topics  of  duty  and  policy,  that  they  attempt  to 
force  the  treaty  down,  and  to  compel  this  assembly 
to  renounce  its  discretion,  and  to  degrade  itself  to  the 
rank  of  a  blind  and  passive  instrument  in  the  hands 
of  the  treaty-making  power.  In  case  we  reject  the 
appropriation,  we  do  not  secure  any  greater  liberty  of 
action,  we  gain  no  safer  shelter  than  before  from  the 
consequences  of  the  decision.  Indeed,  they  are  not  to 
be  evaded.  It  is  neither  just  nor  manly  to  complain 
that  the  treaty-making  power  has  produced  this  co 
ercion  to  act :  it  is  not  the  art  or  the  despotism  of  that 
power,  it  is  the  nature  of  things,  that  compels.  Shall 
we,  dreading  to  become  the  blind  instruments  of 
power,  yield  ourselves  the  blinder  dupes  of  mere 
sounds  of  imposture  1  Yet  that  word,  that  empty 
word,  coercion,  has  given  scope  to  an  eloquence  that 
one  would  imagine  could  not  be  tired,  and  did  not 
choose  to  be  quieted. 

Let  us  examine  still  more  in  detail  the  alternatives 
that  are  before  us,  and  we  shall  scarcely  fail  to  see  in 


123 


still  stronger  lights  the  futility  of  our  apprehensions 
for  the  power  and  liberty  of  the  House. 

If,  as  some  have  suggested,  the  thing  called  a 
treaty  is  incomplete,  if  it  has  no  binding  force  or  obli 
gation,  the  first  question  is,  Will  this  House  complete 
the  instrument,  and,  by  concurring,  impart  to  it  that 
force  which  it  wants  I 

The  doctrine  has  been  avowed,  that  the  treaty, 
though  formally  ratified  by  the  executive  power  of 
both  nations,  though  published  as  a  law  for  our  own 
by  the  President's  proclamation,  is  still  a  mere  propo 
sition  submitted  to  this  assembly,  no  way  distinguish 
able  in  point  of  authority  or  obligation  from  a  motion 
for  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill,  or  any  other  original  act 
of  ordinary  legislation.  This  doctrine,  so  novel  in  our 
country,  yet  so  dear  to  many  precisely  for  the  reason 
that  in  the  contention  for  power  victory  is  always 
dear,  is  obviously  repugnant  to  the  very  terms  as  well 
as  the  fair  interpretation  of  our  own  resolution  (Mr. 
Blount's).  We  declare  that  the  treaty-making  power 
is  exclusively  vested  in  the  President  and  Senate,  and 
not  in  this  House.  Need  I  say  that  we  fly  in  the  face 
of  that  resolution,  when  we  pretend  that  the  acts  of 
that  power  are  not  valid  until  we  have  concurred  in 
them]  It  would  be  nonsense,  or  worse,  to  use  the 
language  of  the  most  glaring  contradiction,  and  to 
claim  a  share  in  a  power  which  we  at  the  same  time 
disclaim,  as  exclusively  vested  in  other  departments. 
What  can  be  more  strange  than  to  say  that  the  com 
pacts  of  the  President  and  Senate  with  foreign  nations 
are  treaties,  without  our  agency,  and  yet  that  those 
compacts  want  all  power  and  obligation  until  they 
are  sanctioned  by  our  concurrence.  It  is  not  my  de- 


124 


sign  in  this  place,  if  at  all,  to  go  into  the  discussion 
of  this  part  of  the  subject.  I  will,  at  least  for  the 
present,  take  it  for  granted  that  this  monstrous  opinion 
stands  in  little  need  of  remark,  and,  if  it  does,  lies 
almost  out  of  the  reach  of  refutation. 

But,  say  those  who  hide  the  absurdity  under  the 
cover  of  ambiguous  phrases,  have  we  no  discretion  ? 
And  if  we  have,  are  we  not  to  make  use  of  it  in  judg 
ing  of  the  expediency  or  inexpediency  of  the  treaty! 
Our  resolution  claims  that  privilege,  and  we  cannot 
surrender  it  without  equal  inconsistency  and  breach 
of  duty. 

If  there  be  any  inconsistency  in  this  case,  it  lies  not 
in  making  the  appropriations  for  the  treaty,  but  in 
the  resolution  itself.  Let  us  examine  it  more  nearly. 
A  treaty  is  a  bargain  between  nations,  binding  in  good 
faith.  And  what  makes  a  bargain ?  The  assent  of  the 
contracting  parties.  We  allow  that  the  treaty  power 
is  not  in  this  House ;  this  House  has  no  share  in  con 
tracting,  and  is  not  a  party :  of  consequence  the  Presi 
dent  and  Senate  alone  may  make  a  treaty  that  is 
binding  in  good  faith.  We  claim,  however,  say  the 
gentlemen,  a  right  to  judge  of  the  expediency  of 
treaties ;  that  is  the  constitutional  province  of  our 
discretion.  Be  it  so.  What  follows  ?  Treaties,  when 
adjudged  by  us  to  be  inexpedient,  fall  to  the  ground, 
and  the  public  faith  is  not  hurt.  This,  incredible  and 
extravagant  as  it  may  seem,  is  asserted.  The  amount 
of  it,  in  plainer  language,  is  this :  the  President  and 
Senate  are  to  make  national  bargains,  and  this  House 
has  nothing  to  do  in  making  them.  But  bad  bargains 
do  not  bind  this  House,  and,  of  inevitable  consequence, 
do  not  bind  the  nation.  When  a  national  bargain, 


125 


called  a  treaty,  is  made,  its  binding  force  does  not  de 
pend  on  the  making,  but  upon  our  opinion  that  it  is 
good.  As  our  opinion  on  the  matter  can  be  known 
and  declared  only  by  ourselves,  when  sitting  in  our 
legislative  capacity,  the  treaty,  though  ratified,  and,  as 
we  choose  to  term  it,  made,  is  hung  up  in  suspense 
till  our  sense  is  ascertained.  We  condemn  the  bar 
gain,  and  it  falls ;  though,  as  we  say,  our  faith  does 
not.  We  approve  a  bargain  as  expedient,  and  it 
stands  firm,  and  binds  the  nation.  Yet,  even  in  this 
latter  case,  its  force  is  plainly  not  derived  from  the 
ratification  by  the  treaty-making  power,  but  from  our 
approbation.  Who  will  trace  these  inferences,  and 
pretend  that  we  have  no  share,  according  to  the  argu 
ment,  in  the  treaty-making  power?  These  opinions, 
nevertheless,  have  been  advocated  with  infinite  zeal 
and  perseverance.  Is  it  possible  that  any  man  can  be 
hardy  enough  to  avow  them,  and  their  ridiculous  con 
sequences  I 

Let  me  hasten  to  suppose  the  treaty  is  considered 
as  already  made,  and  then  the  alternative  is  fairly 
present  to  the  mind,  whether  we  will  observe  the 
treaty,  or  break  it.  This,  in  fact,  is  the  naked  ques 
tion. 

If  we  choose  to  observe  it  with  good  faith,  our 
course  is  obvious.  \Vhatever  is  stipulated  to  be  done 
by  the  nation  must  be  complied  with.  Our  agency, 
if  it  should  be  requisite,  cannot  be  properly  refused. 
And  I  do  not  see  why  it  is  not  as  obligatory  a  rule  of 
conduct  for  the  legislature  as  for  the  courts  of  law. 

I  cannot  lose  this  opportunity  to  remark  that  the 
coercion,  so  much  dreaded  and  declaimed  against, 
appears  at  length  to  be  no  more  than  the  authority  of 


126 


principles,  the  despotism  of  duty.  Gentlemen  com 
plain  we  are  forced  to  act  in  this  way  ;  we  are  forced 
to  swallow  the  treaty.  It  is  very  true,  unless  we  claim 
the  liberty  of  abuse,  the  right  to  act  as  we  ought  not. 
There  is  but  one  right  way  open  for  us  :  the  laws  of 
morality  and  good  faith  have  fenced  up  every  other. 
What  sort  of  liberty  is  that  which  we  presume  to 
exercise  against  the  authority  of  those  laws'?  It  is  for 
tyrants  to  complain  that  principles  are  restraints,  and 
that  they  have  no  liberty,  so  long  as  their  despotism 
has  limits.  These  principles  will  be  unfolded  by 
examining  the  remaining  question :  — 

Shall  10 e  break  the  treaty  ? 

The  treaty  is  bad,  fatally  bad,  is  the  cry.  It  sacri 
fices  the  interest,  the  honor,  the  independence  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  faith  of  our  engagements  to 
France.  If  we  listen  to  the  clamor  of  party  intemper 
ance,  the  evils  are  of  a  number  not  to  be  counted, 
and  of  a  nature  not  to  be  borne,  even  in  idea.  The 
language  of  passion  and  exaggeration  may  silence 
that  of  sober  reason  in  other  places,  it  has  not  done 
it  here.  The  question  here  is,  whether  the  treaty  be 
really  so  very  fatal  as  to  oblige  the  nation  to  break  its 
faith.  I  admit  that  such  a  treaty  ought  not  to  be 
executed.  I  admit  that  self-preservation  is  the  first 
law  of  society,  as  well  as  of  individuals.  It  would 
perhaps  be  deemed  an  abuse  of  terms  to  call  that  a 
treaty  which  violates  such  a  principle.  I  waive  also, 
for  the  present,  any  inquiry,  what  departments  shall 
represent  the  nation,  and  annul  the  stipulations  of  a 
treaty.  I  content  myself  with  pursuing  the  inquiry 
whether  the  nature  of  the  compact  be  such  as  to  jus 
tify  our  refusal  to  carry  it  into  effect.  A  treaty  is  the 


127 


promise  of  a  nation.  Now,  promises  do  not  always 
bind  him  that  makes  them. 

But  I  lay  down  two  rules,  which  ought  to  guide  us 
in  this  case.  The  treaty  must  appear  to  be  bad  not 
merely  in  the  petty  details,  but  in  its  character,  prin 
ciple,  and  mass ;  and  in  the  next  place  this  ought  to 
be  ascertained  by  the  decided  and  general  concurrence 
of  the  enlightened  public.  I  confess  there  seems  to 
me  something  very  like  ridicule  thrown  over  the 
debate  by  the  discussion  of  the  articles  in  detail. 

The  undecided  point  is,  Shall  we  break  our  faith  ] 
And  while  our  country  and  enlightened  Europe  await 
the  issue  with  more  than  curiosity,  wre  are  employed 
to  gather,  piecemeal,  and  article  by  article,  from  the 
instrument,  a  justification  for  the  deed  by  trivial  cal 
culations  of  commercial  profit  and  loss.  This  is  little 
worthy  of  the  subject,  of  this  body,  or  of  the  nation. 
If  the  treaty  is  bad,  it  will  appear  to  be  so  in  its  mass. 
Evil  to  a  fatal  extreme,  if  that  be  its  tendency,  requires 
no  proof :  it  brings  it.  Extremes  speak  for  themselves, 
and  make  their  own  law.  What  if  the  direct  voyage 
of  American  ships  to  Jamaica  with  horses  or  lumber 
might  net  one  or  two  per  cent  more  than  the  present 
trade  to  Surinam,  —  would  the  proof  of  the  fact  avail 
any  thing  in  so  grave  a  question  as  the  violation  of 
the  public  engagements  ? 

It  is  in  vain  to  allege  that  our  faith  plighted  to 
France  is  violated  by  this  new  treaty.  Our  prior  trea 
ties  are  expressly  saved  from  the  operation  of  the 
British  treaty.  And  what  do  those  mean  who  say 
that  our  honor  was  forfeited  by  treating  at  all,  and 
especially  by  such  a  treaty  I  Justice,  the  laws,  and 
practice  of  nations,  a  just  regard  for  peace  as  a  duty 


128 


to  mankind,  and  the  known  wish  of  our  citizens,  as 
well  as  that  self-respect  which  required  it  of  the 
nation  to  act  with  dignity  and  moderation, —  all  these 
forbade  an  appeal  to  arms  before  we  had  tried  the 
effect  of  negotiation.  The  honor  of  the  United  States 
was  saved,  not  forfeited,  by  treating.  The  treaty  it 
self,  by  its  stipulations  for  the  posts,  for  indemnity, 
and  for  a  due  observation  of  our  neutral  rights,  has 
justly  raised  the  character  of  the  nation.  Never  did 
the  name  of  America  appear  in  Europe  with  more 
lustre  than  upon  the  event  of  ratifying  this  instru 
ment.  The  fact  is  of  a  nature  to  overcome  all  con 
tradiction. 

But  the  independence  of  the  country  —  we  are 
colonists  again.  This  is  the  cry  of  the  very  men  who 
tell  us  that  France  will  resent  our  exercise  of  the 
rights  of  an  independent  nation  to  adjust  our  wrongs 
with  an  aggressor,  without  giving  her  the  opportunity 
to  say  those  wrongs  shall  subsist  and  shall  not  be 
adjusted.  This  is  an  admirable  specimen  of  independ 
ence.  The  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  it  cannot  be 
denied,  is  unfavorable  to  this  strange  sort  of  inde 
pendence. 

Few  men  of  any  reputation  for  sense  among  those 
who  say  the  treaty  is  bad  will  put  that  reputation  so 
much  at  hazard  as  to  pretend  that  it  is  so  extremely 
bad  as  to  warrant  and  require  a  violation  of  the 
public  faith.  The  proper  ground  of  the  controversy, 
therefore,  is  really  unoccupied  by  the  opposers  of  the 
treaty  ;  as  the  very  hinge  of  the  debate  is  on  the 
point,  not  of  its  being  good  or  otherwise,  but  whether 
it  is  intolerably  and  fatally  pernicious.  If  loose 
and  ignorant  declaimers  have  anywhere  asserted  the 


129 


latter  idea,  it  is  too  extravagant,  and  too  solidly  re 
futed,  to  be  repeated  here.  Instead  of  any  attempt 
to  expose  it  still  further,  I  will  say,  and  I  appeal  with 
confidence  to  the  candor  of  many  opposers  to  the  treaty 
to  acknowledge,  that,  if  it  had  been  permitted  to  go 
into  operation  silently,  like  our  other  treaties,  so  little 
alteration  of  any  sort  would  be  made  by  it  in  the 
great  mass  of  our  commercial  and  agricultural  con 
cerns,  that  it  would  not  be  generally  discovered  by 
its  effects  to  be  in  force,  during  the  term  for  which  it 
was  contracted.  I  place  considerable  reliance  on  the 
weight  men  of  candor  will  give  to  this  remark,  be 
cause  I  believe  it  to  be  true,  and  little  short  of  unde 
niable.  When  the  panic  dread  of  the  treaty  shall 
cease,  as  it  certainly  must,  it  will  be  seen  through 
another  medium.  Those  who  shall  make  search  into 
the  articles  for  the  cause  of  their  alarms  will  be  so 
far  from  finding  stipulations  that  will  operate  fatally, 
they  will  discover  few  of  them  that  will  have  any 
lasting  operation  at  all.  Those  which  relate  to  the 
disputes  between  the  two  countries  will  spend  their 
force  upon  the  subjects  in  dispute,  and  extinguish 
them.  The  commercial  articles  are  more  of  a  nature 
to  confirm  the  existing  state  of  things  than  to  change 
it.  The  treaty  alarm  was  purely  an  address  to  the 
imagination  and  prejudices  of  the  citizens,  and  not  on 
that  account  the  less  formidable.  Objections  that  pro 
ceed  upon  error  in  fact  or  calculation  may  be  traced 
and  exposed ;  but  such  as  are  drawn  from  the  imagi 
nation,  or  addressed  to  it,  elude  definition,  and  return 
to  domineer  over  the  mind,  after  having  been  banished 
from  it  by  truth. 

I  will  not  so  far  abuse  the  momentary  strength  that 

17 


130 


is  lent  to  me  by  the  zeal  of  the  occasion,  as  to  enlarge 
upon  the  commercial  operation  of  the  treaty.  I  pro 
ceed  to  the  second  proposition,  which  I  have  stated  as 
indispensably  requisite  to  a  refusal  of  the  performance 
of  a  treaty :  Will  the  state  of  public  opinion  justify  the 
deed  ? 

No  government,  not  even  a  despotism,  will  break 
its  faith  without  some  pretext ;  and  it  must  be  plau 
sible,  it  must  be  such  as  will  carry  the  public  opinion 
along  with  it.  Eeasons  of  policy,  if  not  of  morality, 
dissuade  even  Turkey  and  Algiers  from  breaches  of 
treaty  in  mere  wantonness  of  perfidy,  in  open  contempt 
of  the  reproaches  of  their  subjects.  Surely  a  popular 
government  will  not  proceed  more  arbitrarily,  as  it  is 
more  free ;  nor  with  less  shame  or  scruple,  in  propor 
tion  as  it  has  better  morals.  It  will  not  proceed 
against  the  faith  of  treaties  at  all,  unless  the  strong 
and  decided  sense  of  the  nation  shall  pronounce,  not 
simply  that  the  treaty  is  not  advantageous,  but  that  it 
ought  to  be  broken  and  annulled. 

Such  a  plain  manifestation  of  the  sense  of  the 
citizens  is  indispensably  requisite ;  first,  because,  if 
the  popular  apprehensions  be  not  an  infallible  cri 
terion  of  the  disadvantages  of  the  instrument,  their 
acquiescence  in  the  operation  of  it  is  an  irrefragable 
proof  that  the  extreme  case  does  not  exist,  which 
alone  could  justify  our  setting  it  aside. 

In  the  next  place,  this  approving  opinion  of  the 
citizens  is  requisite,  as  the  best  preventive  of  the  ill 
consequences  of  a  measure  always  so  delicate,  and 
often  so  hazardous.  Individuals  would,  in  that  case 
at  least,  attempt  to  repel  the  opprobrium  that  would 
be  thrown  upon  Congress  by  those  who  will  charge  it 


131 

with  perfidy.  They  would  give  weight  to  the  testi 
mony  of  facts,  and  the  authority  of  principles,  on 
which  the  government  would  rest  its  vindication ;  and 
if  war  should  ensue  upon  the  violation,  our  citizens 
would  not  be  divided  from  their  government,  nor  the 
ardor  of  their  courage  be  chilled  by  the  consciousness 
of  injustice  and  the  sense  of  humiliation,  —  that  sense 
which  makes  those  despicable  who  know  they  are 
despised. 

I  add  a  third  reason,  and  with  me  it  has  a  force 
that  no  words  of  mine  can  augment,  that  a  government 
wantonly  refusing  to  fulfil  its  engagement  is  the  cor- 
rupter  of  its  citizens.  Will  the  laws  continue  to  pre 
vail  in  the  hearts  of  the  people,  when  the  respect 
that  gives  them  efficacy  is  withdrawn  from  the  legis 
lators  ?  How  shall  we  punish  vice,  while  we  practise 
it  ?  We  have  not  force,  and  vain  will  be  our  reliance, 
when  we  have  forfeited  the  resources  of  opinion.  To 
weaken  government,  and  to  corrupt  morals,  are  effects 
of  a  breach  of  faith  not  to  be  prevented  ;  and  from 
effects  they  become  causes,  produced  with  augmented 
activity,  of  more  disorder  and  more  corruption :  order 
will  be  disturbed,  and  the  life  of  the  public  liberty 
shortened. 

And  who,  I  would  inquire,  is  hardy  enough  to  pre 
tend  that  the  public  voice  demands  the  violation  of 
the  treaty  ?  The  evidence  of  the  sense  of  the  great 
mass  of  the  nation  is  often  equivocal ;  but  when  was 
it  ever  manifested  with  more  energy  and  precision 
than  at  the  present  moment  I  The  voice  of  the  people 
is  raised  against  the  measure  of  refusing  the  appropria 
tions.  If  gentlemen  should  urge,  nevertheless,  that 
all  this  sound  of  alarm  is  a  counterfeit  expression  of 


132 


the  sense  of  the  public,  I  will  proceed  to  other  proofs. 
Is  the  treaty  ruinous  to  our  commerce  ]  What  has 
blinded  the  eyes  of  the  merchants  and  traders]  Surely 
they  are  not  enemies  to  trade,  nor  ignorant  of  their 
own  interests.  Their  sense  is  not  so  liable  to  be  mis 
taken  as  that  of  a  nation,  and  they  are  almost  unani 
mous.  The  articles  stipulating  the  redress  of  our 
injuries  by  captures  on  the  sea  are  said  to  be  delusive. 
By  whom  is  this  said  I  The  very  men  whose  fortunes 
are  staked  upon  the  competency  of  that  redress  say 
no  such  thing.  They  wait  with  anxious  fear,  lest  you 
should  annul  that  compact,  on  which  all  their  hopes 
are  rested. 

Thus  we  offer  proof,  little  short  of  absolute  demon 
stration,  that  the  voice  of  our  country  is  raised  not  to 
sanction,  but  to  deprecate,  the  non-performance  of  our 
engagements.  It  is  not  the  nation,  it  is  one,  arid  but 
one,  branch  of  the  government  that  proposes  to  reject 
them.  With  this  aspect  of  things,  to  reject  is  an  act 
of  desperation. 

I  shall  be  asked,  why  a  treaty  so  good  in  some 
articles,  and  so  harmless  in  others,  has  met  with  such 
unrelenting  opposition ;  and  how  the  clamors  against 
it  from  New  Hampshire  to  Georgia  can  be  accounted 
for.  The  apprehensions  so  extensively  diffused,  on  its 
first  publication,  will  be  vouched  as  proof  that  the 
treaty  is  bad,  and  that  the  people  hold  it  in  abhorrence. 

I  am  not  embarrassed  to  find  the  answer  to  this 
insinuation.  Certainly  a  foresight  of  its  pernicious 
operation  could  not  have  created  all  the  fears  that 
were  felt  or  affected :  the  alarm  spread  faster  than  the 
publication  of  the  treaty  ;  there  were  more  critics  than 
readers.  Besides,  as  the  subject  was  examined,  those 


133 


fears  have  subsided.  The  movements  of  passion  are 
quicker  than  those  of  the  understanding :  we  are  to 
search  for  the  causes  of  first  impressions,  not  in  the 
articles  of  this  obnoxious  and  misrepresented  instru 
ment,  but  in  the  state  of  the  public  feeling. 

The  fervor  of  the  Revolution  war  had  not  entirely 
cooled,  nor  its  controversies  ceased,  before  the  sensi 
bility  of  our  citizens  was  quickened  with  a  tenfold 
vivacity  by  a  new  and  extraordinary  subject  of  irrita 
tion.  One  of  the  two  great  nations  of  Europe  under 
went  a  change  which  has  attracted  all  our  wonder, 
and  interested  all  our  sympathy.  Whatever  they  did, 
the  zeal  of  many  went  with  them,  and  often  went  to 
excess.  These  impressions  met  with  much  to  inflame, 
and  nothing  to  restrain  them.  In  our  newspapers,  in 
our  feasts,  and  some  of  our  elections,  enthusiasm  was 
admitted  a  merit,  a  test  of  patriotism  ;  and  that  made 
it  contagious.  In  the  opinion  of  party,  we  could  not 
love  or  hate  enough.  I  dare  say,  in  spite  of  all  the 
obloquy  it  may  provoke,  we  were  extravagant  in  both. 
It  is  my  right  to  avow  that  passions  so  impetuous, 
enthusiasm  so  wild,  could  not  subsist  without  disturb 
ing  the  sober  exercise  of  reason,  without  putting  at 
risk  the  peace  and  precious  interests  of  our  country. 
They  were  hazarded.  I  will  not  exhaust  the  little 
breath  I  have  left,  to  say  how  much,  nor  by  whom  or 
by  what  means  they  were  rescued  from  the  sacrifice. 
Shall  I  be  called  upon  to  offer  my  proofs  1  They  are 
here,  they  are  everywhere.  No  one  has  forgotten 
the  proceedings  of  1794.  No  one  has  forgotten  the 
captures  of  our  vessels,  and  the  imminent  danger 
of  war.  The  nation  thirsted  not  merely  for  reparation, 
but  vengeance.  Suffering  such  wrongs  and  agitated 


134 


by  such  resentments,  was  it  in  the  power  of  any  words 
of  compact,  or  could  any  parchment  with  its  seals  pre 
vail  at  once  to  tranquillize  the  people  ]  It  was  impos 
sible.  Treaties  in  England  are  seldom  popular,  and 
least  of  all  when  the  stipulations  of  amity  succeed  to 
the  bitterness  of  hatred.  Even  the  best  treaty,  though 
nothing  be  refused,  will  choke  resentment,  but  not 
satisfy  it.  Every  treaty  is  as  sure  to  disappoint  extrav 
agant  expectations  as  to  disarm  extravagant  passions. 
Of  the  latter,  hatred  is  one  that  takes  no  bribes :  they 
who  are  animated  by  the  spirit  of  revenge  will  not  be 
quieted  by  the  possibility  of  profit. 

Why  do  they  complain  that  the  West  Indies  are 
not  laid  open  I  Why  do  they  lament  that  any  restric 
tion  is  stipulated  on  the  commerce  of  the  East  Indies] 
Why  do  they  pretend  that  if  they  reject  this,  and 
insist  upon  more,  more  will  be  accomplished'?  Let 
us  be  explicit:  more  would  not  satisfy.  If  all  was 
granted,  would  not  a  treaty  of  amity  with  Britain  still 
be  obnoxious  \  Have  we  not  this  instant  heard  it 
urged  against  our  envoy  that  he  was  not  ardent 
enough  in  his  hatred  of  Great  Britain  I  A  treaty  of 
amity  is  condemned  because  it  was  not  made  by  a  foe, 
and  in  the  spirit  of  one.  The  same  gentleman,  at  the 
same  instant,  repeats  a  very  prevailing  objection,  that 
no  treaty  should  be  made  with  the  enemy  of  France. 
No  treaty,  exclaim  others,  should  be  made  with  a 
monarch  or  a  despot :  there  will  be  no  naval  security 
while  those  sea  robbers  domineer  on  the  ocean ;  their 
den  must  be  destroyed ;  that  nation  must  be  extir 
pated. 

I  like  this,  sir,  because  it  is  sincerity.  With  feel 
ings  such  as  these,  we  do  not  pant  for  treaties :  such 


135 


passions  seek  nothing,  and  will  be  content  with  noth 
ing,  but  the  destruction  of  their  object.  If  a  treaty 
left  King  George  his  island,  it  would  not  answer,  not 
if  he  stipulated  to  pay  rent  for  it.  It  has  been  said, 
the  world  ought  to  rejoice  if  Britain  was  sunk  in  the 
sea ;  if,  where  there  are  now  men,  and  wealth,  and 
laws,  and  liberty,  there  was  no  more  than  a  sand-bank 
for  the  sea  monsters  to  fatten  on,  a  space  for  the 
storms  of  the  ocean  to  mingle  in  conflict. 

I  object  nothing  to  the  good  sense  or  humanity  of 
all  this.  I  yield  the  point,  that  this  is  a  proof  that 
the  age  of  reason  is  in  progress.  Let  it  be  philan 
thropy,  let  it  be  patriotism,  if  you  will ;  but  it  is  no 
indication  that  any  treaty  would  be  approved.  The 
difficulty  is  not  to  overcome  the  objections  to  the 
terms  :  it  is  to  restrain  the  repugnance  to  any  stipula 
tions  of  amity  with  the  party. 

Having  alluded  to  the  rival  of  Great  Britain,  I  am 
not  unwilling  to  explain  myself:  I  affect  no  conceal 
ment,  and  I  have  practised  none.  While  those  two 
great  nations  agitate  all  Europe  with  their  quarrels, 
they  will  both  equally  endeavor  to  create  an  influence 
in  America :  each  will  exert  all  its  arts  to  range  our 
strength  on  its  own  side.  How  is  this  to  be  effected  I 
Our  government  is  a  democratical  republic :  it  will  not 
be  disposed  to  pursue  a  system  of  politics,  in  subservi 
ence  to  either  France  or  England,  in  opposition  to  the 
general  wishes  of  the  citizens  ;  and,  if  Congress  should 
adopt  such  measures,  they  would  not  be  pursued  long, 
nor  with  much  success.  From  the  nature  of  our  gov 
ernment,  popularity  is  the  instrument  of  foreign  influ 
ence.  Without  it,  all  is  labor  and  disappointment : 
with  that  mighty  auxiliary,  foreign  intrigue  finds 


f 


136 


agents  not  only  volunteers,  but  competitors  for  em 
ployment,  and  any  thing  like  reluctance  is  understood 
to  be  a  crime.  Has  Britain  this  means  of  influence  ] 
Certainly  not.  If  her  gold  could  buy  adherents,  their 
becoming  such  would  deprive  them  of  all  political 
power  and  importance.  They  would  not  wield  popu 
larity  as  a  weapon,  but  would  fall  under  it.  Britain 
has  no  influence,  and,  for  the  reasons  just  given,  can 
have  none.  She  has  enough ;  and  God  forbid  she 
ever  should  have  more.  France,  possessed  of  popular 
enthusiasm,  of  party  attachments,  has  had,  and  still 
has,  too  much  influence  on  our  politics :  any  foreign 
influence  is  too  much,  and  ought  to  be  destroyed.  I 
detest  the  man,  and  disdain  the  spirits,  that  can  bend 
to  a  mean  subserviency  to  the  view  of  any  nation.  It 
is  enough  to  be  Americans :  that  character  compre 
hends  our  duties,  and  ought  to  engross  our  attach 
ments. 

But  I  would  not  be  misunderstood.  I  would  not 
break  the  alliance  with  France  :  I  would  not  have  the 
connection  between  the  two  countries  even  a  cold  one. 
It  should  be  cordial  and  sincere ;  but  I  would  banish 
that  influence  which,  by  acting  on  the  passions  of  the 
citizens,  may  acquire  a  power  over  the  government. 

It  is  no  bad  proof  of  the  merit  of  the  treaty,  that, 
under  all  these  unfavorable  circumstances,  it  should 
be  so  well  approved.  In  spite  of  first  impressions,  in 
spite  of  misrepresentation  and  party  clamor,  inquiry 
has  multiplied  its  advocates  ;  and  at  last  the  public 
sentiment  appears  to  me  clearly  preponderating  to  its 
side. 

On  the  most  careful  review  of  the  several  branches 
of  the  treaty,  those  which  respect  political  arrange- 


137 


ments,  the  spoliations  on  our  trade,  and  the  regulation 
of  commerce,  there  is  little  to  be  apprehended ;  the 
evil,  aggravated  as  it  is  by  party,  is  little  in  degree, 
and  short  in  duration,  —  two  years  from  the  end  of  the 
European  war.  I  ask,  and  I  would  ask  the  question 
significantly,  what  are  the  inducements  to  reject  the 
treaty  ?  What  great  object  is  to.  be  gained,  and  fairly 
gained  by  if?  If,  however,  as  to  the  merits  of  the 
treaty,  candor  should  suspend  its  approbation,  what  is 
there  to  hold  patriotism  a  moment  in  balance  as  to 
the  violation  of  it?  Nothing.  I  repeat  confidently, 
nothing.  There  is  nothing  before  us  in  that  event 
but  confusion  and  dishonor. 

But  before  I  attempt  to  develop  those  conse 
quences,  I  must  put  myself  at  ease  by  some  explana 
tion.  Nothing  is  worse  received  among  men  than 
the  confutation  of  their  opinions  ;  and,  of  these,  none 
are  more  dear  or  more  vulnerable  than  their  political 
opinions.  To  say  that  a  proposition  leads  to  shame 
and  ruin  is  almost  equivalent  to  a  charge  that  the 
supporters  of  it  intend  to  produce  them.  I  throw  my 
self  upon  the  magnanimity  and  candor  of  those  who 
hear  me.  I  cannot  do  justice  to  my  subject  without 
exposing,  as  forcibly  as  I  can,  all  the  evils  in  prospect. 
I  readily  admit  that  in  every  science,  and  most  of  all 
in  politics,  error  springs  from  other  sources  than  the 
want  of  sense  or  integrity.  I  despise  indiscriminate 
professions  of  candor  and  respect.  There  are  indi 
viduals  opposed  to  me,  of  whom  I  am  not  bound  to 
say  any  thing ;  but  of  many,  perhaps  of  a  majority 
of  the  opposers  of  the  appropriations,  it  gives  me 
pleasure  to  declare  they  possess  my  confidence  and 

18 


138 


regard.  There  are  among  them  individuals  for  whom 
I  entertain  a  cordial  affection. 

The  consequences  of  refusing  to  make  provision  for 
the  treaty  are  not  all  to  be  foreseen.  By  rejecting, 
vast  interests  are  committed  to  the  sport  of  the  winds : 
chance  becomes  the  arbiter  of  events,  and  it  is  for 
bidden  to  human  foresight  to  count  their  number  or 
measure  their  extent.  Before  we  resolve  to  leap  into 
this  abyss,  so  dark  and  so  profound,  it  becomes  us  to 
pause  and  reflect  upon  such  of  the  dangers  as  are 
obvious  and  inevitable.  If  this  assembly  should  be 
wrought  into  a  temper  to  defy  these  consequences,  it 
is  vain,  it  is  deceptive  to  pretend  that  we  can  escape 
them.  It  is  worse  than  weakness  to  say  that,  as  to 
public  faith,  our  vote  has  already  settled  the  question. 
Another  tribunal  than  our  own  is  already  erected : 
the  public  opinion  not  merely  of  our  own  country, 
but  of  the  enlightened  world,  will  pronounce  a  judg 
ment  that  we  cannot  resist,  that  we  dare  not  even  affect 
to  despise. 

Well  may  I  urge  it  to  men,  who  know  the  worth 
of  character,  that  it  is  no  trivial  calamity  to  have  it 
contested.  Refusing  to  do  what  the  treaty  stipulates 
shall  be  done  opens  the  controversy.  Even  if  we 
should  stand  justified  at  last,  a  character  that  is  vindi 
cated  is  something  worse  than  it  stood  before,  unques 
tioned  and  unquestionable.  Like  the  plaintiff  in  an 
action  of  slander,  we  recover  a  reputation  disfigured 
by  invective,  and  even  tarnished  by  too  much  hand 
ling.  In  the  combat  for  the  honor  of  the  nation,  it 
may  receive  some  wounds,  which,  though  they  should 
heal,  will  leave  scars.  I  need  not  say,  for  surely  the 
feelings  of  every  bosom  have  anticipated,  that  we 


139 


cannot  guard  this  sense  of  national  [honor,  this  ever- 
living  fire,  which  alone  keeps  patriotism  warm  in  the 
heart,  with  a  sensibility  too  vigilant  and  jealous.  If, 
by  executing  the  treaty,  there  is  no  possibility  of  dis 
honor,  and  if,  by  rejecting,  there  is  some  foundation 
for  doubt  and  for  reproach,  it  is  not  for  me  to  measure  : 
it  is  for  your  own  feelings  to  estimate  the  vast  dis 
tance  that  divides  the  one  side  of  the  alternative  from 
the  other. 

If  therefore  we  should  enter  on  the  examination  of 
the  question  of  duty  and  obligation  with  some  feelings 
of  prepossession,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  they  are 
such  as  we  ought  to  have :  it  is  an  after  inquiry  to 
determine  whether  they  are  such  as  ought  finally  to 
be  resisted. 

The  resolution  (Mr.  Blount's)  is  less  explicit  than 
the  Constitution.  Its  patrons  should  have  made  it 
more  so,  if  possible,  if  they  had  any  doubts,  or  meant 
the  public  should  entertain  none.  Is  it  the  sense  of 
that  vote,  as  some  have  insinuated,  that  we  claim  a 
right,  for  any  cause  or  no  cause  at  all  but  our  own 
sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  to  refuse  to  execute,  and 
thereby  to  annul  the  stipulations  of  a  treaty  1  that  we 
have  nothing  to  regard  but  the  expediency  or  inexpe 
diency  of  the  measure,  being  absolutely  free  from  all 
obligation  by  compact  to  give  it  our  sanction]  A 
doctrine  so  monstrous,  so  shameless,  is  refuted  by 
being  avowed.  There  are  no  words  you  could  express 
it  in  that  would  not  convey  both  confutation  and 
reproach.  It  would  outrage  the  ignorance  of  the 
tenth  century  to  believe ;  it  would  baffle  the  casuistry 
of  a  papal  council  to  vindicate.  I  venture  to  say  it  is 
impossible.  No  less  impossible  that  we  should  desire 


140 


to  assert  the  scandalous  privilege  of  being  free,  after 
we  have  pledged  our  honor. 

It  is  doing  injustice  to  the  resolution  of  the  House 
(which  I  dislike  on  many  accounts)  to  strain  the  inter 
pretation  of  it  to  this  extravagance.  The  treaty-mak 
ing  power  is  declared  by  it  to  be  vested  exclusively  in 
the  President  and  Senate.  Will  any  man  in  his  senses 
affirm  that  it  can  be  a  treaty  before  it  has  any  binding 
force  or  obligation  ?  If  it  has  no  binding  force  upon 
us,  it  has  none  upon  Great  Britain.  Let  candor 
answer,  is  Great  Britain  free  from  any  obligation  to 
deliver  the  posts  in  June,  and  are  we  willing  to  sig 
nify  to  her  that  we  think  so  1  Is  it  with  that  nation 
a  question  of  mere  expediency  or  inexpediency  to  do 
it;  and  that  too,  even  after  we  have  done  all  that 
depends  upon  us  to  give  the  treaty  effect  I  No  sober 
man  believes  this;  no  one  who  would  not  join  in 
condemning  the  faithless  proceeding  of  that  nation,  if 
such  a  doctrine  should  be  avowed  and  carried  into 
practice.  And  why  complain,  if  Great  Britain  is  not 
bound  ?  There  can  be  no  breach  of  faith,  where  none 
is  plighted.  I  shall  be  told  that  she  is  bound.  Surely 
it  follows  that,  if  she  is  bound  to  performance,  our 
nation  is  under  a  similar  obligation ;  if  both  parties 
be  not  obliged,  neither  is  obliged :  it  is  no  compact, 
no  treaty.  This  is  a  dictate  of  law  and  common  sense, 
and  every  jury  in  the  country  has  sanctioned  it  on 
oath.  It  cannot  be  a  treaty  and  yet  no  treaty,  a  bar 
gain  and  yet  no  promise.  If  it  is  a  promise,  I  am  not 
to  read  a  lecture  to  show  why  an  honest  man  will 
keep  his  promise. 

The  reason  of  the  thing  and  the  words  of  the 
resolution  of  the  House  imply  that  the  United  States 


141 

engage  their  good  faith  in  a  treaty.  We  disclaim,  say 
the  majority,  the  treaty-making  power ;  we  of  course 
disclaim  (they  ought  to  say)  every  doctrine  that  would 
put  a  negative  upon  the  doings  of  that  power.  It  is 
the  prerogative  of  folly  alone  to  maintain  both  sides 
of  the  proposition. 

Will  any  man  affirm  the  American  nation  is  en 
gaged  by  good  faith  to  the  British  nation,  but  that 
engagement  is  nothing  to  this  House  1  Such  a  man  is 
not  to  be  reasoned  with.  Such  a  doctrine  is  a  coat  of 
mail,  that  would  turn  the  edge  of  all  the  weapons  of 
argument,  if  they  were  sharper  than  a  sword.  Will 
it  be  imagined  the  King  of  Great  Britain  and  the  Presi 
dent  are  mutually  bound  by  the  treaty,  but  the  two 
nations  are  free  ] 

It  is  one  thing  for  this  House  to  stand  in  a  position 
that  presents  an  opportunity  to  break  the  faith  of 
America,  and  another  to  establish  a  principle  that  will 
justify  the  deed. 

We  feel  less  repugnance  to  believe  that  any  other 
body  is  bound  by  obligation  than  our  own.  There  is 
not  a  man  here  who  does  not  say  that  Great  Britain 
is  bound  by  treaty.  Bring  it  nearer  home.  Is  the 
Senate  bound  I  Just  as  much  as  the  House,  and  no 
more.  Suppose  the  Senate,  as  part  of  the  treaty 
power,  by  ratifying  a  treaty  on  Monday,  pledges  the 
public  faith  to  do  a  certain  act.  Then,  in  their  ordi 
nary  capacity  as  a  branch  of  the  legislature,  the  Senate 
is  called  upon  on  Tuesday  to  perform  that  act,  —  for 
example,  an  appropriation  of  money :  is  the  Senate  (so 
lately  under  obligation)  now  free  to  agree  or  disagree 
to  the  act?  If  the  twenty  ratifying  senators  should 
rise  up  and  avow  this  principle,  saying,  we  struggle 


142 


for  liberty,  we  will  not  be  ciphers,  mere  puppets, 
and  give  their  votes  accordingly,  would  not  shame 
blister  their  tongues  ;  would  not  infamy  tingle  in  their 
ears ;  would  not  their  country,  which  they  had  in 
sulted  and  dishonored,  though  it  should  be  silent  and 
forgiving,  be  a  revolutionary  tribunal,  a  rack,  on  which 
their  own  reflections  would  stretch  them  I 

This,  sir,  is  a  cause  that  would  be  dishonored  and 
betrayed,  if  I  contented  myself  with  appealing  only  to 
the  understanding.  It  is  too  cold,  and  its  processes 
are  too  slow  for  the  occasion.  I  desire  to  thank  God 
that,  since  he  has  given  me  an  intellect  so  fallible,  he 
has  impressed  upon  me  an  instinct  that  is  sure.  On 
a  question  of  shame  and  honor  reasoning  is  sometimes 
useless,  and  worse.  I  feel  the  decision  in  my  pulse : 
if  it  throws  no  light  upon  the  brain,  it  kindles  a  fire 
at  the  heart. 

It  is  not  easy  to  deny,  it  is  impossible  to  doubt,  that 
a  treaty  imposes  an  obligation  on  the  American  na 
tion.  It  would  be  childish  to  consider  the  President 
and  Senate  obliged,  and  the  nation  and  House  free. 
What  is  the  obligation]  —  perfect  or  imperfect]  If 
perfect,  the  debate  is  brought  to  a  conclusion.  If  im 
perfect,  how  large  a  part  of  our  faith  is  pawned  ]  Is 
half  our  honor  put  at  risk,  and  is  that  half  too  cheap 
to  be  redeemed]  How  long  has  this  hair-splitting 
subdivision  of  good  faith  been  discovered,  and  why 
has  it  escaped  the  researches  of  the  writers  on  the 
law  of  nations  ]  Shall  we  add  a  new  chapter  to  that 
law ;  or  insert  this  doctrine  as  a  supplement  to,  or 
more  properly  a  repeal  of,  the  Ten  Commandments  ] 

The  principles  and  the  example  of  the  British  Par 
liament  have  been  alleged  to  coincide  with  the  doc- 


143 


trine  of  those  who  deny  the  obligation  of  the  treaty. 
I  have  not  had  the  health  to  make  very  laborious  re 
searches  into  this  subject :  I  will,  however,  sketch  my 
view  of  it.  Several  instances  have  been  noticed  ;  but 
the  treaty  of  Utrecht  is  the  only  one  that  seems  to  be 
at  all  applicable.  It  has  been  answered  that  the  con 
duct  of  Parliament  in  that  celebrated  example  affords 
no  sanction  to  our  refusal  to  carry  the  treaty  into 
effect.  The  obligation  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht  has 
been  understood  to  depend  on  the  concurrence  of  Par 
liament,  as  a  condition  to  its  becoming  of  force.  If 
that  opinion  should,  however,  appear  incorrect,  still 
the  precedent  proves,  not  that  the  treaty  of  Utrecht 
wanted  obligation,  but  that  Parliament  disregarded  it : 
a  proof,  not  of  the  construction  of  the  treaty-making 
power,  but  of  the  violation  of  a  national  engagement. 
Admitting  still  further  that  the  Parliament  claimed 
and  exercised  its  power,  not  as  a  breach  of  faith,  but 
as  a  matter  of  constitutional  right,  I  reply  that  the 
analogy  between  Parliament  and  Congress  totally 
fails.  The  nature  of  the  British  government  may  re 
quire  and  justify  a  course  of  proceeding  in  respect  to 
treaties  that  is  unwarrantable  here. 

The  British  government  is  a  mixed  one.  The  king 
at  the  head  of  the  army,  of  the  hierarchy,  with  an 
ample  civil  list,  hereditary,  unresponsible,  and  possess 
ing  the  prerogative  of  peace  and  war,  may  be  properly 
observed  with  some  jealousy,  in  respect  to  the  exercise 
of  the  treaty-making  power.  It  seems,  and  perhaps 
from  a  spirit  of  caution  on  this  account,  to  be  their 
doctrine  that  treaties  bind  the  nation,  but  are  not  to 
be  regarded  by  the  courts  of  law  until  laws  have  been 
passed  conformably  to  them.  Our  Constitution  has 


144. 


expressly  regulated  the  matter  differently.  The  con 
currence  of  Parliament  is  necessary  to  treaties  becom 
ing  laws  in  England,  gentlemen  say ;  and  here  the 
Senate,  representing  the  States,  must  concur  in  trea 
ties.  The  Constitution  and  the  reason  of  the  case 
make  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate  as  effectual  as  the 
sanction  of  Parliament ;  and  why  not  ]  The  Senate  is 
an  elective  body,  and  the  approbation  of  a  majority  of 
the  States  affords  the  nation  as  ample  security  against 
the  abuse  of  the  treaty-making  power  as  the  British 
nation  can  enjoy  in  the  control  of  Parliament. 

Whatever  doubt  there  may  be  as  to  the  parliamen 
tary  doctrine  of  the  obligation  of  treaties  in  Great 
Britain  (and  perhaps  there  is  some),  there  is  none  in 
their  books  or  their  modern  practice.  Blackstone 
represents  treaties  as  of  the  highest  obligation  when 
ratified  by  the  king  ;  and  for  almost  a  century  there 
has  been  no  instance  of  opposition  by  Parliament  to 
this  doctrine.  Their  treaties  have  been  uniformly 
carried  into  effect,  although  many  have  been  ratified 
of  a  nature  most  obnoxious  to  party,  and  have  pro 
duced  a  louder  clamor  than  we  have  lately  witnessed. 
The  example  of  England  therefore,  fairly  examined, 
does  not  warrant,  it  dissuades  us  from  a  negative 
vote. 

Gentlemen  have  said,  with  spirit,  whatever  the  true 
doctrine  of  our  Constitution  may  be,  Great  Britain  has 
no  right  to  complain  or  to  dictate  an  interpretation : 
the  sense  of  the  American  nation,  as  to  the  treaty 
power,  is  to  be  received  by  all  foreign  nations.  This 
is  very  true  as  a  maxim  ;  but  the  fact  is  against  those 
who  vouch  it:  the  sense  of  the  American  nation  is 
not  as  the  vote  of  the  House  has  declared  it.  Our 


145 


claim  to  some  agency  in  giving  force  and  obligation  to 
treaties  is,  beyond  all  kind  of  controversy,  novel.  The 
sense  of  tbe  nation  is  probably  against  it :  the  sense 
of  the  government  certainly  is.  The  President  denies 
it  on  constitutional  grounds,  and  therefore  cannot  ever 
accede  to  our  interpretation.  The  Senate  ratified  the 
treaty,  and  cannot  without  dishonor  adopt  it,  as  I  have 
attempted  to  show.  Where,  then,  do  they  find  the 
proof  that  this  is  the  American  sense  of  the  treaty- 
making  power,  which  is  to  silence  the  murmurs  of 
Great  Britain]  Is  it  because  a  majority  of  two  or 
three,  or  at  the  most  four  or  five,  of  this  House  will 
reject  the  treaty  I  Is  it  thus  the  sense  of  our  nation 
is  to  be  recognized?  Our  government  may  thus  be 
stopped  in  its  movements :  a  struggle  for  power  may 
thus  commence,  and  the  event  of  the  conflict  may  de 
cide  who  is  the  victor,  and  the  quiet  possessor  of  the 
treaty  power.  But,  at  present,  it  is  beyond  all  credi 
bility  that  our  vote  by  a  bare  majority  should  be 
believed  to  do  any  thing  better  than  to  imbitter  our 
divisions,  and  to  tear  up  the  settled  foundations  of  our 
departments. 

If  the  obligation  of  a  treaty  be  complete,  I  am  aware 
that  cases  sometimes  exist  which  will  justify  a  nation 
in  refusing  a  compliance.  Are  our  liberties,  gentle 
men  demand,  to  be  bartered  away  by  a  treaty ;  and 
is  there  no  remedy  ?  There  is.  Extremes  are  not 
to  be  supposed ;  but,  when  they  happen,  they  make 
the  law  for  themselves.  No  such  extreme  can  be  pre 
tended  in  this  instance ;  and,  if  it  existed,  the  author 
ity  it  would  confer  to  throw  off  the  obligation  would 
rest  where  the  obligation  itself  resides,  —  in  the  nation. 
This  House  is  not  the  nation ;  it  is  not  the  whole  dele- 

19 


146 


gated  authority  of  the  nation.  Being  only  a  part  of 
that  authority,  its  right  to  act  for  the  whole  society 
obviously  depends  on  the  concurrence  of  the  other 
two  branches.  If  they  refuse  to  concur,  a  treaty  once 
made  remains  of  full  force,  although  a  breach  on  the 
part  of  the  foreign  nation  would  confer  upon  our  own 
a  right  to  forbear  the  execution.  I  repeat  it,  even  in 
that  case,  the  act  of  this  House  cannot  be  admitted  as 
the  act  of  the  nation  ;  and  if  the  President  and  Senate 
should  not  concur,  the  treaty  would  be  obligatory. 

I  put  a  case  that  will  not  fail  to  produce  conviction. 
Our  treaty  with  France  engages  that  free  bottoms 
shall  make  free  goods;  and  how  has  it  been  kept? 
As  such  engagements  will  ever  be  in  time  of  war. 
France  has  set  it  aside,  and  pleads  imperious  neces 
sity.  We  have  no  navy  to  enforce  the  observance  of 
such  articles,  and  paper  barriers  are  weak  against  the 
violence  of  those  who  are  on  the  scramble  for  enemy's 
goods  on  the  high  seas.  The  breach  of  any  article  of 
the  treaty  by  one  nation  gives  an  undoubted  right  to 
the  other  to  renounce  the  whole  treaty.  But  has  one 
branch  of  the  government  that  right,  or  must  it  reside 
with  the  whole  authority  of  the  nation]  What  if  the 
Senate  should  resolve  that  the  French  treaty  is  broken, 
and  therefore  null  and  of  no  effect  ?  The  answer  is 
obvious :  you  would  deny  their  sole  authority.  That 
branch  of  the  legislature  has  equal  power,  in  this  re 
gard,  with  the  House  of  Representatives :  one  branch 
alone  cannot  express  the  will  of  the  nation. 

A  right  to  annul  a  treaty,  because  a  foreign  nation 
has  broken  its  articles,  is  only  like  the  case  of  a  suffi 
cient  cause  to  repeal  a  law.  In  both  cases,  the  branches 
of  our  government  must  concur  in  the  orderly  way,  or 
the  law  and  the  treaty  will  remain. 


147 


The  very  cases  supposed  by  my  adversaries  in  this 
argument  conclude  against  themselves.  They  will 
persist  in  confounding  ideas  that  should  be  kept  dis 
tinct:  they  will  suppose  that  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  has  no  power  unless  it  has  all  power ;  the 
House  is  nothing,  if  it  be  not  the  whole  government, 
the  nation. 

On  every  hypothesis,  therefore,  the  conclusion  is 
not  to  be  resisted :  we  are  either  to  execute  this  treaty, 
or  break  our  faith. 

To  expatiate  on  the  value  of  public  faith  may  pass 
with  some  men  for  declamation :  to  such  men  I  have 
nothing  to  say.  To  others  I  will  urge,  can  any  cir 
cumstance  mark  upon  a  people  more  turpitude  and 
debasement'?  Can  any  thing  tend  more  to  make  men 
think  themselves  mean,  or  degrade  to  a  lower  point 
their  estimation  of  virtue  and  their  standard  of  action  ] 
It  would  not  merely  demoralize  mankind :  it  tends  to 
break  all  the  ligaments  of  society,  to  dissolve  that 
mysterious  charm  which  attracts  individuals  to  the 
nation,  and  to  inspire  in  its  stead  a  repulsive  sense  of 
shame  and  disgust. 

What  is  patriotism]  Is  it  a  narrow  affection  for  the 
spot  where  a  man  was  born]  Are  the  very  clods 
where  we  tread  entitled  to  this  ardent  preference, 
because  they  are  greener]  No,  sir:  this  is  not  the 
character  of  the  virtue,  and  it  soars  higher  for  its 
object.  It  is  an  extended  self-love,  mingling  with  all 
the  enjoyments  of  life,  and  twisting  itself  with  the 
minutest  filaments  of  the  heart.  It  is  thus  we  obey 
the  laws  of  society,  because  they  are  the  laws  of 
virtue.  In  their  authority  we  see  not  the  array  of 
force  and  terror,  but  the  venerable  image  of  our 


148 


country's  honor.  Every  good  citizen  makes  that 
honor  his  own,  and  cherishes  it  not  only  as  precious, 
but  as  sacred.  He  is  willing  to  risk  his  life  in  its 
defence ;  and  is  conscious  that  he  gains  protection, 
while  he  gives  it.  For  what  rights  of  a  citizen  will 
be  deemed  inviolable,  when  a  State  renounces  the 
principles  that  constitute  their  security  1  Or,  if  his 
life  should  not  be  invaded,  what  would  its  enjoyments 
be  in  a  country  odious  in  the  eyes  of  strangers,  and 
dishonored  in  his  own?  Could  he  look  with  affection 
and  veneration  to  such  a  country  as  his  parent  ?  The 
sense  of  having  one  would  die  within  him ;  he  would 
blush  for  his  patriotism,  if  he  retained  any,  and  justly, 
for  it  would  be  a  vice :  he  would  be  a  banished  man 
in  his  native  land. 

I  see  no  exception  to  the  respect  that  is  paid  among 
nations  to  the  law  of  good  faith.  If  there  are  cases 
in  this  enlightened  period  when  it  is  violated,  there 
are  none  when  it  is  decried.  It  is  the  philosophy  of 
politics,  the  religion  of  governments.  It  is  observed 
by  barbarians :  a  whiff  of  tobacco  smoke,  or  a  string  of 
beads,  gives  not  merely  binding  force  but  sanctity  to 
treaties.  Even  in  Algiers,  a  truce  may  be  bought  for 
money ;  but,  when  ratified,  even  Algiers  is  too  wise 
or  too  just  to  disown  and  annul  its  obligation.  Thus 
we  see  neither  the  ignorance  of  savages,  nor  the  prin 
ciples  of  an  association  for  piracy  and  rapine,  permit 
a  nation  to  despise  its  engagements.  If,  sir,  there 
could  be  a  resurrection  from  the  foot  of  the  gallows, 
if  the  victims  of  justice  could  live  again,  collect  to 
gether  and  form  a  society,  they  would,  however  loath, 
soon  find  themselves  obliged  to  make  justice,  that 
justice  under  which  they  fell,  the  fundamental  law  of 


149 


their  State.  They  would  perceive  it  was  their  interest 
to  make  others  respect,  and  they  would  therefore  soon 
pay  some  respect  themselves  to  the  obligations  of  good 
faith. 

It  is  painful,  I  hope  it  is  superfluous,  to  make  even 
the  supposition  that  America  should  furnish  the  occa 
sion  of  this  opprobrium.  No  :  let  me  not  even  imagine 
that  a  republican  government,  sprung,  as  our  own  is, 
from  a  people  enlightened  and  uncorrupted, — a  govern 
ment  whose  origin  is  right,  and  whose  daily  discipline 
is  duty,  —  can,  upon  solemn  debate,  make  its  option  to 
be  faithless ;  can  dare  to  act  what  despots  dare  not 
avow,  what  our  own  example  evinces  the  States  of 
Barbary  are  unsuspected  of.  No :  let  me  rather  make 
the  supposition  that  Great  Britain  refuses  to  execute 
the  treaty,  after  we  have  done  every  thing  to  carry  it 
into  effect.  Is  there  any  language  of  reproach  pun 
gent  enough  to  express  your  commentary  on  the  fact  ? 
What  would  you  say,  or,  rather,  what  would  you  not 
say  ?  Would  you  not  tell  them,  wherever  an  English 
man  might  travel,  shame  would  stick  to  him :  he 
would  disown  his  country.  You  would  exclaim,  Eng 
land,  proud  of  your  wealth,  and  arrogant  in  the  pos 
session  of  power,  blush  for  these  distinctions  which 
become  the  vehicles  of  your  dishonor  !  Such  a  nation 
might  truly  say  to  corruption,  Thou  art  my  father ;  and 
to  the  worm,  Thou  art  my  mother  and  my  sister.  We 
should  say  of  such  a  race  of  men,  their  name  is  a 
heavier  burden  than  their  debt. 

I  can  scarcely  persuade  myself  to  believe  that  the 
consideration  I  have  suggested  requires  the  aid  of  any 
auxiliary  ;  but,  unfortunately,  auxiliary  arguments  are 
at  hand.  Five  millions  of  dollars,  and  probably  more, 


150 


on  the  score  of  spoliations  committed  on  our  com 
merce,  depend  upon  the  treaty :  the  treaty  offers  the 
only  prospect  of  indemnity.  Such  redress  is  promised 
as  the  merchants  place  some  confidence  in.  Will  you 
interpose  and  frustrate  that  hope,  leaving  to  many 
families  nothing  but  beggary  and  despair?  It  is  a 
smooth  proceeding  to  take  a  vote  in  this  body :  it 
takes  less  than  half  an  hour  to  call  the  yeas  and  nays, 
and  reject  the  treaty.  But  what  is  the  effect  of  it  I 
What  but  this :  the  very  men,  formerly  so  loud  for 
redress,  such  fierce  champions  that  even  to  ask  for 
justice  was  too  mean  and  too  slow,  now  turn  their 
capricious  fury  upon  the  sufferers,  and  say,  by  their 
vote,  to  them  and  their  families,  No  longer  eat  bread : 
petitioners,  go  home  and  starve :  we  cannot  satisfy 
your  wrongs  and  our  resentments. 

Will  you  pay  the  sufferers  out  of  the  treasury  ?  No. 
The  answer  was  given  two  years  ago,  and  appears  on 
our  journals.  Will  you  give  them  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal,  to  pay  themselves  by  force  ?  No.  That 
is  war.  Besides,  it  would  be  an  opportunity  for  those 
who  have  already  lost  much,  to  lose  more.  Will  you 
go  to  war  to  avenge  their  injury  ?  If  you  do,  the  war 
will  leave  you  no  money  to  indemnify  them.  If  it 
should  be  unsuccessful,  you  will  aggravate  existing 
evils ;  if  successful,  your  enemy  will  have  no  treasure 
left  to  give  our  merchants:  the  first  losses  will  be 
confounded  with  much  greater,  and  be  forgotten.  At 
the  end  of  a  war  there  must  be  a  negotiation,  which  is 
the  very  point  we  have  already  gained ;  and  why 
relinquish  it?  And  who  will  be  confident  that  the 
terms  of  the  negotiation,  after  a  desolating  war,  would 
be  more  acceptable  to  another  House  of  Representa- 


151 


tives  than  the  treaty  before  us!  Members  and 
opinions  may  be  so  changed  that  the  treaty  would 
then  be  rejected  for  being  what  the  present  majority 
say  it  should  be.  Whether  we  shall  go  on  making 
treaties  and  refusing  to  execute  them,  1  know  not:  of 
this  I  am  certain,  it  will  be  very  difficult  to  exercise 
the  treaty-making  power  on  the  new  principle,  with 
much  reputation  or  advantage  to  the  country. 

The  refusal  of  the  posts  (inevitable  if  we  reject  the 
treaty)  is  a  measure  too  decisive  in  its  nature  to  be 
neutral  in  its  consequences.  From  great  causes  we 
are  to  look  for  great  effects.  A  plain  and  obvious 
one  will  be,  the  price  of  the  Western  lands  will  fall: 
settlers  will  not  choose  to  fix  their  habitation  on  a  field 
of  battle.  Those  who  talk  so  much  of  the  interest  of 
the  United  States  should  calculate  how  deeply  it  will 
be  affected  by  rejecting  the  treaty ;  how  vast  a  tract 
of  wild  land  will  almost  cease  to  be  property.  This 
loss,  let  it  be  observed,  will  fall  upon  a  fund  expressly 
devoted  to  sink  the  national  debt.  What,  then,  are 
we  called  upon  to  do  ?  However  the  form  of  the 
vote  and  the  protestations  of  many  may  disguise  the 
proceeding,  our  resolution  is  in  substance,  and  it*  de 
serves  to  wear  the  title  of  a  resolution,  to  prevent  the 
sale  of  the  Western  lands  and  the  discharge  of  the 
public  debt. 

Will  the  tendency  to  Indian  hostilities  be  contested 
by  any  one  I  Experience  gives  the  answer.  The 
frontiers  were  scourged  with  war,  until  the  negotia 
tion  with  Great  Britain  was  far  advanced  ;  and  then 
the  state  of  hostility  ceased.  Perhaps  the  public 
agents  of  both  nations  are  innocent  of  fomenting  the 
Indian  war,  and  perhaps  they  are  not.  We  ought 


152 


not,  however,  to  expect  that  neighboring  nations, 
highly  irritated  against  each  other,  will  neglect  the 
friendship  of  the  savages.  The  traders  will  gain  an 
influence,  and  will  abuse  it ;  and  who  is  ignorant  that 
their  passions  are  easily  raised,  and  hardly  restrained 
from  violence  ?  Their  situation  will  oblige  them  to 
choose  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain,  in  case 
the  treaty  should  be  rejected :  they  will  not  be  our 
friends,  and  at  the  same  time  the  friends  of  our  enemies. 

But  am  I  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  proving  this 
point?  Certainly  the  very  men  who  charged  the 
Indian  war  on  the  detention  of  the  posts  will  call  for 
no  other  proof  than  the  recital  of  their  own  speeches. 
It  is  remembered  with  what  emphasis,  with  what 
acrimony,  they  expatiated  on  the  burden  of  taxes, 
and  the  drain  of  blood  and  treasure  into  the  Western 
country,  in  consequence  of  Britain's  holding  the  posts. 
Until  the  posts  are  restored,  they  exclaimed,  the  treas 
ury  and  the  frontiers  must  bleed. 

If  any,  against  all  these  proofs,  should  maintain 
that  the  peace  with  the  Indians  will  be  stable  without 
the  posts,  to  them  I  will  urge  another  reply.  From 
arguments  calculated  to  produce  conviction,  I  will 
appeal  directly  to  the  hearts  of  those  who  hear  me, 
and  ask  whether  it  is  not  already  planted  there.  I 
resort  especially  to  the  convictions  of  the  Western 
gentlemen,  whether,  supposing  no  posts  and  no  treaty, 
the  settlers  will  remain  in  security.  Can  they  take  it 
upon  them  to  say  that  an  Indian  peace,  under  these 
circumstances,  will  prove  firm  ]  No,  sir :  it  will  not 
be  peace,  but  a  sword  ;  it  will  be  no  better  than  a  lure 
to  draw  victims  within  the  reach  of  the  tomahawk. 

On  this  theme,  my  emotions  are  unutterable.     If  I 


153 


could  find  words  for  them,  if  my  powers  bore  any 
proportion  to  my  zeal,  I  would  swell  my  voice  to  such 
a  note  of  remonstrance  it  should  reach  every  log- 
house  beyond  the  mountains.  I  would  say  to  the  in 
habitants,  Wake  from  your  false  security !  your  cruel 
dangers,  your  more  cruel  apprehensions  are  soon  to 
be  renewed ;  the  wounds,  yet  unhealed,  are  to  be  torn 
open  again  ;  in  the  day  time,  your  path  through  the 
woods  will  be  ambushed ;  the  darkness  of  midnight 
will  glitter  with  the  blaze  of  your  dwellings.  You 
are  a  father,  —  the  blood  of  your  sons  shall  fatten  your 
corn-field :  you  are  a  mother,  —  the  war-whoop  shall 
wake  the  sleep  of  the  cradle. 

On  this  subject  you  need  not  suspect  any  deception 
on  your  feelings :  it  is  a  spectacle  of  horror  which 
cannot  be  overdrawn.  If  you  have  nature  in  your 
hearts,  they  will  speak  a  language  compared  with 
which  all  I  have  said  or  can  say  will  be  poor  and 
frigid. 

Will  it  be  whispered  that  the  treaty  has  made  me 
a  new  champion  for  the  protection  of  the  frontiers  1 
It  is  known  that  my  voice  as  well  as  vote  have 
been  uniformly  given  in  comformity  with  the  ideas  I 
have  expressed.  Protection  is  the  right  of  the  fron 
tiers  :  it  is  our  duty  to  give  it. 

Who  will  accuse  me  of  wandering  out  of  the  sub 
ject]  Who  will  say  that  I  exaggerate  the  tendencies 
of  our  measures  ?  Will  any  one  answer  by  a  sneer 
that  all  this  is  idle  preaching  ]  Will  any  one  deny 
that  we  are  bound,  and  I  would  hope  to  good  purpose, 
by  the  most  solemn  sanctions  of  duty  for  the  vote 
we  give  ?  Are  despots  alone  to  be  reproached  for 
unfeeling  indifference  to  the  tears  and  blood  of  their 

20 


154 


subjects  ?  Are  republicans  unresponsible  1  Have 
the  principles,  on  which  you  ground  the  reproach 
upon  cabinets  and  kings,  no  practical  influence,  no 
binding  force  I  Are  they  merely  themes  of  idle  dec 
lamation,  introduced  to  decorate  the  morality  of  a 
newspaper  essay,  or  to  furnish  pretty  topics  of  ha 
rangue  from  the  windows  of  that  State  house  I  I  trust 
it  is  neither  too  presumptuous  nor  too  late  to  ask,  Can 
you  put  the  dearest  interest  of  society  at  risk  without 
guilt  and  without  remorse  1 

It  is  vain  to  offer  as  an  excuse  that  public  men  are 
not  to  be  reproached  for  the  evils  that  may  happen  to 
ensue  from  their  measures.  This  is  very  true  where 
they  are  unforeseen  or  inevitable.  Those  I  have 
depicted  are  not  unforeseen  :  they  are  so  far  from 
inevitable,  we  are  going  to  bring  them  into  being  by 
our  vote.  We  choose  the  consequences,  and  become 
as  justly  answerable  for  them  as  for  the  measure  that 
we  know  will  produce  them. 

By  rejecting  the  posts,  we  light  the  savage  fires, 
we  bind  the  victims.  This  day  we  undertake  to  render 
account  to  the  widows  and  orphans  whom  our  deci 
sion  will  make,  to  the  wretches  that  will  be  roasted  at 
the  stake,  to  our  country,  and  I  do  not  deem  it  too 
serious  to  say,  to  conscience  and  to  God.  We  are 
answerable  ;  and  if  duty  be  any  thing  more  than  a 
word  of  imposture,  if  conscience  be  not  a  bugbear, 
we  are  preparing  to  make  ourselves  as  wretched  as 
our  country. 

There  is  no  mistake  in  this  case,  there  can  be  none: 
experience  has  already  been  the  prophet  of  events, 
and  the  cries  of  our  future  victims  have  already 
reached  us.  The  Western  inhabitants  are  not  a  silent 


155 


and  uncomplaining  sacrifice.  The  voice  of  humanity 
issues  from  the  shade  of  the  wilderness :  it  exclaims 
that,  while  one  hand  is  held  up  to  reject  this  treaty, 
the  other  grasps  a  tomahawk.  It  summons  our 
imagination  to  the  scenes  that  will  open.  It  is  no 
great  effort  of  the  imagination  to  conceive  that  events 
so  near  are  already  begun.  I  can  fancy  that  I  listen 
to  the  yells  of  savage  vengeance  and  the  shrieks  of 
torture  ;  already  they  seem  to  sigh  in  the  western 
wind ;  already  they  mingle  with  every  echo  from  the 
mountains. 

It  is  not  the  part  of  prudence  to  be  inattentive 
to  the  tendencies  of  measures ;  where  there  is  any 
ground  to  fear  that  these  will  be  pernicious,  wisdom 
and  duty  forbid  that  we  should  underrate  them.  If 
we  reject  the  treaty,  will  our  peace  be  as  safe  as  if 
we  execute  it  with  good  faith  ?  I  do  honor  to  the 
intrepid  spirit  of  those  who  say  it  will.  It  was 
formerly  understood  to  constitute  the  excellence 
of  a  man's  faith  to  believe  without  evidence  and 
against  it. 

But  as  opinions  on  this  article  are  changed,  and 
we  are  called  to  act  for  our  country,  it  becomes  us 
to  explore  the  dangers  that  will  attend  its  peace,  and 
avoid  them  if  we  can.  Few  of  us  here,  and  fewer 
still  in  proportion  of  our  constituents,  will  doubt  that, 
by  rejecting,  all  those  dangers  will  be  aggravated. 

The  idea  of  war  is  treated  as  a  bugbear.  This 
levity  is  at  least  unseasonable,  and  most  of  all  un 
becoming  some  who  resort  to  it.  Who  has  forgotten 
the  philippics  of  1794]  The  cry  then  was  repara 
tion  ;  no  envoy  ;  no  treaty  ;  no  tedious  delays.  Now 
it  seems  the  passion  subsides,  or  at  least  the  hurry  to 


156 


satisfy  it.  Great  Britain,  say  they,  will  not  wage  war 
upon  us. 

In  1794,  it  was  urged  by  those  who  now  say  no 
war,  that  if  we  built  frigates,  or  resisted  the  piracies 
of  Algiers,  we  could  not  expect  peace.  Now  they 
give  excellent  comfort  truly.  Great  Britain  has  seized 
our  vessels  and  cargoes  to  the  amount  of  millions ; 
she  holds  the  posts  ;  she  interrupts  our  trade,  say  they, 
as  a  neutral  nation  ;  and  these  gentlemen,  formerly  so 
fierce  for  redress,  assure  us,  in  terms  of  the  sweetest 
consolation,  Great  Britain  will  bear  all  this  patiently. 
But  let  me  ask  the  late  champions  of  our  rights,  Will 
our  nation  bear  if?  Let  others  exult  because  the 
aggressor  will  let  our  wrongs  sleep  for  ever.  Will 
it  add,  it  is  my  duty  to  ask,  to  the  patience  and  quiet 
of  our  citizens  to  see  their  rights  abandoned  1  Will 
not  the  disappointment  of  their  hopes,  so  long  pat 
ronized  by  the  government,  now  in  the  crisis  of  their 
being  realized  convert  all  their  passions  into  fury  and 
despair  ? 

Are  the  posts  to  remain  for  ever  in  the  possession 
of  Great  Britain  1  Let  those  who  reject  them,  when 
the  treaty  offers  them  to  our  hands,  say,  if  they  choose, 
they  are  of  no  importance.  If  they  are,  will  they 
take  them  by  force  ?  The  argument  I  am  urging 
would  then  come  to  a  point.  To  use  force  is  war  ; 
to  talk  of  treaty  again  is  too  absurd^  the  posts  and 
redress  must  come  from  voluntary  good- will,  treaty, 
or  war.  The  conclusion  is  plain :  if  the  state  of 
peace  shall  continue,  so  will  the  British  possession 
of  the  posts. 

Look  again  at  this  state  of  things :  On  the  sea-coast, 
vast  losses  uncompensated ;  on  the  frontier,  Indian 


157 


war  and  actual  encroachment  on  our  territory ;  every 
where  discontent ;  resentments  tenfold  more  fierce 
because  they  will  be  impotent  and  humbled ;  national 
discord  and  abasement.  The  disputes  of  the  old 
treaty  of  1783,  being  left  to  rankle,  will  revive  the 
almost  extinguished  animosities  of  that  period.  Wars 
in  all  countries,  and  most  of  all  in  such  as  are  free, 
arise  from  the  impetuosity  of  the  public  feelings.  The 
despotism  of  Turkey  is  often  obliged  by  clamor  to 
unsheathe  the  sword.  War  might  perhaps  be  delayed, 
but  could  not  be  prevented :  the  causes  of  it  would 
remain,  would  be  aggravated,  would  be  multiplied, 
and  soon  become  intolerable.  More  captures,  more 
impressments,  would  swell  the  list  of  our  wrongs  and 
the  current  of  our  rage.  I  make  no  calculation  of 
the  arts  of  those  whose  employment  it  has  been,  on 
former  occasions,  to  fan  the  fire ;  I  say  nothing  of 
the  foreign  money  and  emissaries  that  might  foment 
the  spirit  of  hostility,  because  the  state  of  things  will 
naturally  run  to  violence :  with  less  than  their  former 
exertion  they  would  be  successful. 

Will  our  government  be  able  to  temper  and  restrain 
the  turbulence  of  such  a  crisis  ?  The  government, 
alas !  will  be  in  no  capacity  to  govern.  A  divided 
people  and  divided  counsels !  Shall  we  cherish  the 
spirit  of  peace  or  show  the  energies  of  war  ]  Shall 
we  make  our  adversary  afraid  of  our  strength,  or  dis 
pose  him,  by  the  measures  of  resentment  and  broken 
faith,  to  respect  our  rights  I  Do  gentlemen  rely  on 
the  state  of  peace,  because  both  nations  will  be  worse 
disposed  to  keep  it  ]  because  injuries,  and  insults  still 
harder  to  endure,  will  be  mutually  offered  ] 

Such  a  state  of  things  will  exist  if  we  should  long 


158 


avoid  war,  as  will  be  worse  than  war :  peace  without 
security,  accumulation  of  injury  without  redress  or  the 
hope  of  it,  resentment  against  the  aggressor,  contempt 
for  ourselves,  intestine  discord,  and  anarchy.  Worse 
than  this  need  not  be  apprehended ;  for,  if  worse  could 
happen,  anarchy  would  bring  it.  Is  this  the  peace 
gentlemen  undertake  with  such  fearless  confidence  to 
maintain  ]  Is  this  the  station  of  American  dignity, 
which  the  high-spirited  champions  of  our  national 
independence  and  honor  could  endure ;  nay,  which 
they  are  anxious  and  almost  violent  to  seize  for  the 
country  1  What  is  there  in  the  treaty  that  could 
humble  us  so  low  ?  Are  they  the  men  to  swallow 
their  resentments,  who  so  lately  were  choking  with 
them  ?  If  in  the  case  contemplated  by  them,  it 
should  be  peace,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  declare  it  ought 
not  to  be  peace. 

Is  there  any  thing  in  the  prospect  of  the  interior 
state  of  the  country  to  encourage  us  to  aggravate  the 
dangers  of  a  war  ]  Would  not  the  shock  of  that  evil 
produce  another,  and  shake  down  the  feeble  and  then 
unbraced  structure  of  our  government?  Is  this  a 
chimera]  Is  it  going  off  the  ground  of  matter  of 
fact  to  say  the  rejection  of  the  appropriation  proceeds 
upon  the  doctrine  of  a  civil  war  of  the  departments  ? 
Two  branches  have  ratified  a  treaty,  and  we  are  going 
to  set  it  aside.  How  is  this  disorder  in  the  machine 
to  be  rectified?  While  it  exists,  its  movements  must 
stop  ;  and  when  we  talk  of  a  remedy,  is  that  any 
other  than  the  formidable  one  of  a  revolutionary  in 
terposition  of  the  people  I  And  is  this,  in  the  judg 
ment  even  of  my  opposers,  to  execute,  to  preserve 
the  Constitution  and  the  public  order  ?  Is  this  the 


159 


state  of  hazard,  if  not  of  convulsion,  which  they  can 
have  the  courage  to  contemplate  and  to  brave  ;  or 
beyond  which  their  penetration  can  reach  and  see  the 
issue  ?  They  seem  to  believe,  and  they  act  as  if  they 
believed,  that  our  union,  our  peace,  our  liberty,  are 
invulnerable  and  immortal  ;  as  if  our  happy  state  was 
not  to  be  disturbed  by  our  dissensions,  and  that  we 
are  not  capable  of  falling  from  it  by  our  unworthi- 
ness.  Some  of  them  have  no  doubt  better  nerves  and 
better  discernment  than  mine.  They  can  see  the 
bright  aspects  and  happy  consequences  of  all  this 
array  of  horrors.  They  can  see  intestine  discords, 
our  government  disorganized,  our  wrongs  aggravated, 
multiplied,  and  unredressed,  peace  with  dishonor,  or 
war  without  justice,  union,  or  resources,  in  "  the  calm 
lights  of  mild  philosophy." 

But  whatever  they  may  anticipate  as  the  next 
measure  of  prudence  and  safety,  .they  have  explained 
nothing  to  the  House.  After  rejecting  the  treaty, 
what  is  to  be  the  next  step  I  They  must  have  fore 
seen  what  ought  to  be  done ;  they  have  doubtless 
resolved  what  to  propose.  Why,  then,  are  they 
silent  I  Dare  they  not  now  avow  their  plan  of  con 
duct,  or  do  they  wait  until  our  progress  towards 
confusion  shall  guide  them  in  forming  it  I 

Let  me  cheer  the  mind,  weary  no  doubt  and  ready 
to  despond  on  this  prospect,  by  presenting  another 
which  it  is  yet  in  our  power  to  realize.  Is  it  possible 
for  a  real  American  to  look  at  the  prosperity  of  this 
country  without  some  desire  for  its  continuance, 
without  some  respect  for  the  measures  which  many 
will  say  produced,  and  all  will  confess  have  preserved 
it  I  Will  he  not  feel  some  dread  that  a  change  of 


160 


system  will  reverse  the  scene  ]  The  well-grounded 
fears  of  our  citizens  in  1794  were  removed  by  the 
treaty,  but  are  not  forgotten.  Then  they  deemed  war 
nearly  inevitable,  and  would  not  this  adjustment  have 
been  considered  at  that  day  as  a  happy  escape  from 
the  calamity  ?  The  great  interest  and  the  general 
desire  of  our  people  were  to  enjoy  the  advantages  of 
neutrality.  This  instrument,  however  misrepresented, 
affords  America  that  inestimable  security.  The  causes 
of  our  disputes  are  either  cut  up  by  the  roots,  or 
referred  to  a  new  negotiation,  after  the  end  of  the 
European  war.  This  was  gaining  every  thing,  be 
cause  it  confirmed  our  neutrality,  by  which  our  citi 
zens  are  gaming  every  thing.  This  alone  would 
justify  the  engagements  of  the  government.  For, 
when  the  fiery  vapors  of  the  war  lowered  in  the 
skirts  of  our  horizon,  all  our  wishes  were  concentred 
in  this  one,  that  we  might  escape  the  desolation  of 
the  storm.  This  treaty,  like  a  rainbow  on  the  edge 
of  the  cloud,  marked  to  our  eyes  the  space  where  it 
was  raging,  and  afforded  at  the  same  time  the  sure 
prognostic  of  fair  weather.  If  we  reject  it,  the  vivid 
colors  will  grow  pale ;  it  will  be  a  baleful  meteor 
portending  tempest  and  war. 

Let  us  not  hesitate,  then,  to  agree  to  the  appropri 
ation  to  carry  it  into  faithful  execution.  Thus  we 
shall  save  the  faith  of  our  nation,  secure  its  peace, 
and  diffuse  the  spirit  of  confidence  and  enterprise 
that  will  augment  its  prosperity.  The  progress  of 
wealth  and  improvement  is  wonderful,  and,  some  will 
think,  too  rapid.  The  field  for  exertion  is  fruitful 
and  vast,  and  if  peace  and  good  government  should 
be  preserved,  the  acquisitions  of  our  citizens  are  not 


161 


so  pleasing  as  the  proofs  of  their  industry,  as  the 
instruments  of  their  future  success.  The  rewards  of 
exertion  go  to  augment  its  power.  Profit  is  every 
hour  becoming  capital.  The  vast  crop  of  our  neu 
trality  is  all  seed  wheat,  and  is  sown  again  to  swell, 
almost  beyond  calculation,  the  future  harvest  of  pros 
perity.  In  this  progress  what  seems  to  be  fiction  is 
found  to  fall  short  of  experience. 

I  rose  to  speak  under  impressions  that  I  would 
have  resisted  if  I  could.  Those  who  see  me  will 
believe  that  the  reduced  state  of  my  health  has  un 
fitted  me,  almost  equally,  for  much  exertion  of  body 
or  mind.  Unprepared  for  debate  by  careful  reflec 
tion  in  my  retirement,  or  by  long  attention  here,  I 
thought  the  resolution  I  had  taken  to  sit  silent  was 
imposed  by  necessity,  and  would  cost  me  no  effort  to 
maintain.  With  a  mind  thus  vacant  of  ideas,  and 
sinking,  as  I  really  am,  under  a  sense  of  weakness,  I 
imagined  the  very  desire  of  speaking  was  extinguished 
by  the  persuasion  that  I  had  nothing  to  say.  Yet 
when  I  come  to  the  moment  of  deciding  the  vote,  I 
start  back  with  dread  from  the  edge  of  the  pit  into 
which  we  are  plunging.  In  my  view,  even  the  min 
utes  I  have  *spent  in  expostulation  have  their  value, 
because  they  protract  the  crisis,  and  the  short  period 
in  which  alone  we  may  resolve  to  escape  it. 

I  have  thus  been  led  by  my  feelings  to  speak  more 
at  length  than  I  had  intended.  Yet  I  have  perhaps 
as  little  personal  interest  in  the  event  as  any  one  here. 
There  is,  I  believe,  no  member  who  will  not  think  his 
chance  to  be  a  witness  of  the  consequences  greater 
than  mine.  If,  however,  the  vote  should  pass  to 

21 


162 


reject,  and  a  spirit  should  rise,  as  it  will,  with  the 
public  disorders,  to  make  "  confusion  worse  con 
founded,"  even  I,  slender  and  almost  broken  as  my 
hold  upon  life  is,  may  outlive  the  government  and 
Constitution  of  my  country. 


VII. 


THE  following  "  Answer  to  Washington's  Address  to  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives "  was  prepared  by  Mr.  Ames,  as 
chairman  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  House  for  that  pur 
pose.  When  presented  to  the  House,  it  met  with  some  technical 
opposition,  and  underwent  some  slight  verbal  alterations.  In  the 
second  paragraph,  the  phrase  "  interior  frontier  "  (an  expression 
which  was  contained  in  the  President's  speech)  was  changed  to 
"  western  frontier ; "  in  the  fourth  paragraph,  the  words  enclosed 
in  brackets  were  interpolated  by  amendment ;  and  in  the  same 
paragraph,  the  word  "mutual"  was  inserted  before  the  words 
"spirit  of  justice,"  and  the  words  "on  the  part  of  the  republic" 
were  stricken  out ;  in  the  sixth  paragraph,  the  words,  "  tranquil 
prosperity  with  the  period,"  were  stricken  out,  and  the  words 
"  present  period  with  that "  substituted  for  them ;  in  the  paragraph 
before  the  last,  the  beginning  of  the  first  sentence  was  amended  to 
read,  "  The  spectacle  of  a  free  and  enlightened  nation."  These 
were  all  the  amendments  to  the  "  Answer  "  as  it  was  reported  to  the 
House.  But  it  will  doubtless  cause  no  little  surprise  to  learn  that 
the  debate  upon  it  was  long  and  heated.  It  is  hard  to  realize  that 
an  honorable  Representative  from  Virginia  should  stand  in  his 
place  in  the  House  and  announce  his  dissent  from  the  u  Address," 
for  the  testimony  it  bore  to  the  "  wisdom  and  firmness"  of  Wash 
ington's  administration,  because  he  believed  that  administration 
had  been  neither  wise  nor  firm  ;  or  that  the  paragraph  wherein  it 
says,  "  that  your  example  may  be  the  guide  of  your  successors," 
should  prove  especially  obnoxious  to  some  of  the  Representatives 


164 


from  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Kentucky.  Mr. 
Blount,  of  North  Carolina,  even  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays, 
that  posterity  might  see  that  he  did  not  consent  to  the  "  Address." 
And  Mr.  Thomas  Blount  heads  the  list  of  the  nays,  making  his 
protest  to  posterity,  which  has  already  decided  between  him  and 
Washington.* 

The  "  Address  "  is  given  as  originally  reported,  with  the  addition 
of  the  interpolations  placed  in  italics  in  the  fourth  paragraph. 

SLR,  —  The  House  of  Representatives  have  attended  to  your  communica 
tion  respecting  the  state  of  our  country,  with  all  the  sensibility  that  the 
contemplation  of  the  subject  and  a  sense  of  duty  can  inspire. 

We  are  gratified  by  the  information  that  measures  calculated  to  insure 
a  continuance  of  the  friendship  of  the  Indians,  and  to  retain  the  tran 
quillity  of  the  interior  frontier,  have  been  adopted ;  and  we  indulge  the 
hope  that  these,  by  impressing  the  Indian  tribes  with  more  correct  con 
ceptions  of  the  justice,  as  well  as  power  of  the  United  States,  will  be 
attended  with  success. 

While  we  notice  with  satisfaction  the  steps  you  have  taken  in  pursu 
ance  of  the  late  treaties  with  several  foreign  nations,  the  liberation  of 
our  citizens  who  were  prisoners  at  Algiers  is  a  subject  of  peculiar  felici 
tation.  We  shall  cheerfully  co-operate  in  any  further  measures,  that 
shall  appear,  on  consideration,  to  be  requisite. 

We  have  ever  concurred  with  you  in  the  most  sincere  and  uniform 
disposition  to  perserve  our  neutral  relations  inviolate  ;  and  it  is,  of  course, 
with  anxiety  and  deep  regret  we  hear  that  any  interruption  of  our 
harmony  with  the  French  Republic  has  occurred ;  for  we  feel,  with  you 
and  with  our  constituents,  the  cordial  and  unabated  wish  to  maintain  a 
perfectly  friendly  understanding  with  that  nation.  Your  endeavors  to 
fulfil  that  wish  [and  by  all  honorable  means  to  preserve  peace,  and  to 
restore  that  harmony  and  affection  which  have  heretofore  so  happily  sub 
sisted  between  the  French  Eepublic  and  the  United  States']  cannot  fail, 
therefore,  to  interest  our  attention.  And  while  we  participate  in  the  full 
reliance  you  have  expressed  on  the  patriotism,  self-respect,  and  fortitude 
of  our  countrymen,  we  cherish  the  pleasing  hope  that  a  mutual  spirit  of 
justice  and  moderation  [on  the  part  of  the  republic]  will  insure  the 
success  of  your  perseverance. 

The  various  subjects  of  your  communication  will,  respectively,  meet 
with  the  attention  that  is  due  to  their  importance. 

*  For  a  full  account  of  this  remarkable  debate,  see  "  Annals  of  Congress/' 
1796-97,  and  "  Life  and  Works  of  Fisher  Ames,"  1854,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  209,  210, 
note. 


165 


When  we  advert  to  the  internal  situation  of  the  United  States,  we  deem 
it  equally  natural  and  becoming  to  compare  the  tranquil  prosperity  of  the 
citizens  with  the  period  immediately  antecedent  to  the  operation  of  the 
government,  and  to  contrast  it  with  the  calamities  in  which  the  state  of 
war  still  involves  several  of  the  European  nations ;  as  the  reflections 
deduced  from  both  tend  to  justify,  as  well  as  to  excite,  a  warmer  admira 
tion  of  our  free  Constitution,  and  to  exalt  our  minds  to  a  more  fervent 
and  grateful  sense  of  piety  towards  Almighty  God  for  the  beneficence  of 
his  providence,  by  which  its  administration  has  hitherto  been  so  remark 
ably  distinguished. 

And  while  we  entertain  a  grateful  conviction  that  your  wise,  firm,  and 
patriotic  administration  has  been  signally  conducive  to  the  success  of 
the  present  form  of  government,  we  cannot  forbear  to  express  the  deep 
sensations  of  regret  with  which  we  contemplate  your  intended  retirement 
from  office. 

As  no  other  suitable  occasion  may  occur,  we  cannot  suffer  the  present 
to  pass  without  attempting  to  disclose  some  of  the  emotions  which  it 
cannot  fail  to  awaken. 

The  gratitude  and  admiration  of  your  countrymen  are  still  drawn  to 
the  recollection  of  those  resplendent  virtues  and  talents  which  were  so 
eminently  instrumental  to  the  achievement  of  the  Revolution,  and  of 
which  that  glorious  event  will  ever  be  the  memorial.  Your  obedience  to 
the  voice  of  duty  and  your  country,  when  you  quitted  reluctantly  a  second 
time  the  retreat  you  had  chosen,  and  first  accepted  the  Presidency, 
afforded  a  new  proof  of  the  devotedness  of  your  zeal  in  its  service,  and 
an  earnest  of  the  patriotism  and  success  which  have  characterized  your 
administration.  As  the  grateful  confidence  of  the  citizens  in  the  virtues 
of  their  chief  magistrate  has  essentially  contributed  to  that  success,  we 
persuade  ourselves  that  the  millions  whom  we  represent  participate  with 
us  in  the  anxious  solicitude  of  the  present  occasion. 

Yet  we  cannot  be  unmindful  that  your  moderation  and  magnanimity, 
twice  displayed  by  retiring  from  your  exalted  stations,  afford  examples 
no  less  rare  and  instructive  to  mankind  than  valuable  to  a  republic. 

Although  we  are  sensible  that  this  event,  of  itself,  completes  the  lustre 
of  a  character  already  conspicuously  unrivalled  by  the  coincidence  of 
virtue,  talents,  success,  and  public  estimation,  yet  we  conceive  that  we  owe 
it  to  you,  sir,  and  still  more  emphatically  to  ourselves  and  to  our  nation 
(of  the  language  of  whose  hearts  we  presume  to  think  ourselves  at  this 
moment  the  faithful  interpreters) ,  to  express  the  sentiments  with  which  it 
is  contemplated. 

The  spectacle  of  a  whole  nation,  the  freest  and  most  enlightened  of  the 
world,  offering  by  its  Representatives  the  tribute  of  unfeigned  approba 
tion  to  its  first  citizen,  however  novel  and  interesting  it  may  be,  derives 
all  its  lustre  —  a  lustre  which  accident  or  enthusiasm  could  not  bestow, 


166 


and  which  adulation  would  tarnish  —  from  the  transcendent  merit  of  which 
it  is  the  voluntary  testimony. 

May  you  long  enjoy  that  liberty  which  is  so  dear  to  you,  and  to  which 
your  name  will  ever  be  so  dear !  May  your  own  virtues  and  a  nation's 
prayers  obtain  the  happiest  sunshine  for  the  decline  of  your  days,  and 
the  choicest  of  future  blessings!  For  your  country's  sake, — for  the 
sake  of  republican  liberty,  —  it  is  our  earnest  wish  that  your  example 
may  be  the  guide  of  your  successors,  and  thus,  after  being  the  orna 
ment  and  safeguard  of  the  present  age,  become  the  patrimony  of  our 
descendants. 


Cambridge  :  Press  of  John  Wilson  and  Son. 


HOME  USE 


rec'd  circ.  FEB  1  7 

~ 


FORM  NO.  DD  6,  40m 


GENERAL  LIBRARY  -  U.C.  BERKELEY 


